S5450 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 26, 2012 

Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move 

to bring to a close debate on the nomination 

of Robert E. Bacharach, of Oklahoma, to be 

United States Circuit Judge for the 10th Circuit. 

Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Thomas R. 

Carper, Tom Udall, Robert Menendez, 

Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Dianne Feinstein, Kent Conrad, Christopher A. 

Coons, Herb Kohl, Amy Klobuchar, 

Jack Reed, Ron Wyden, Richard J. Durbin, Jeff Merkley, Richard Blumenthal, 

Sherrod Brown. 

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent 

that the mandatory quorum under rule 

XXII be waived. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

LEGISLATIVE SESSION 

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent 

that the Senate resume legislative session. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2012— 

MOTION TO PROCEED—Continued 

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent 

that at 3:30 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to proceed— 

or what we can do, we will start the 

vote at 3:25; and if somebody is going 

to be a bit late, we will protect them 

on that. 

So I ask unanimous consent we start 

voting at 3:25 p.m. today on the motion 

to proceed to S. 3414, the cybersecurity 

bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. REID. Madam President, I meant 

that request to be 3:22 p.m. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. REID. All for my friend from 

Louisiana. 

CLOTURE MOTION

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant 

to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the 

Senate the pending cloture motion, 

which the clerk will state. 

The assistant bill clerk read as follows: 

CLOTURE MOTION

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move 

to bring to a close debate on the motion to 

proceed to calendar No. 470, S. 3414, a bill to 

enhance the security and resiliency of the 

cyber and communications infrastructure of 

the United States. 

Harry Reid, Joseph I. Lieberman, John 

D. Rockefeller IV, Dianne Feinstein, 

Sheldon Whitehouse, Barbara A. Mikulski, Barbara Boxer, Jeff Bingaman, 

Patty Murray, Max Baucus, Charles E. 

Schumer, Bill Nelson, Christopher A. 

Coons, Tom Udall, Carl Levin, Mark R. 

Warner, Ben Nelson. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 

call has been waived. 

The question is, Is it the sense of the 

Senate that debate on the motion to 

proceed to S. 3414, a bill to enhance the 

security and resiliency of the cyber and 

communications infrastructure in the 

United States, shall be brought to a 

close? 

The yeas and nays are mandatory 

under the rule. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk called 

the roll. 

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the 

Senator from North Dakota (Mr. CONRAD) is necessarily absent. 

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are 

necessarily absent: the Senator from 

South Carolina (Mr. DEMINT), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. INHOFE), the 

Senator from Illinois (Mr. KIRK), and 

the Senator from Utah (Mr. LEE). 

Further, if present and voting, the 

Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 

DEMINT) would have voted ‘‘nay.’’ 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 84, 

nays 11, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 185 Leg.] 

YEAS—84 

Akaka 

Alexander 

Ayotte 

Begich 

Bennet 

Bingaman 

Blumenthal 

Blunt 

Boozman 

Boxer 

Brown (MA) 

Brown (OH) 

Burr 

Cantwell 

Cardin 

Carper 

Casey 

Chambliss 

Coats 

Coburn 

Cochran 

Collins 

Coons 

Corker 

Cornyn 

Crapo 

Durbin 

Feinstein 

Franken 

Gillibrand 

Graham 

Grassley 

Hagan 

Harkin 

Hatch 

Hoeven 

Hutchison 

Inouye 

Isakson 

Johnson (SD) 

Kerry 

Klobuchar 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Landrieu 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lugar 

Manchin 

McCain 

McCaskill 

McConnell 

Menendez 

Merkley 

Mikulski 

Murkowski 

Murray 

Nelson (NE) 

Nelson (FL) 

Portman 

Pryor 

Reed 

Reid 

Risch 

Rockefeller 

Sanders 

Schumer 

Sessions 

Shaheen 

Shelby 

Snowe 

Stabenow 

Thune 

Toomey 

Udall (CO) 

Udall (NM) 

Vitter 

Warner 

Webb 

Whitehouse 

Wicker 

Wyden 

NAYS—11 

Barrasso 

Baucus 

Enzi 

Heller 

Johanns 

Johnson (WI) 

Moran 

Paul 

Roberts 

Rubio 

Tester 

NOT VOTING—5 

Conrad 

DeMint 

Inhofe 

Kirk 

Lee 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this 

vote, the yeas are 84, the nays are 11. 

Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut. 

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will yield to the 

leader. I thank him, too, for that resounding vote, which seems to me not 

that the debate is over but the debate 

is going to begin, and an overwhelming 

majority of the Members of the Senate 

want to adopt cybersecurity legislation. 

Mrs. MCCASKILL. Mr. President, I 

come to the floor today to express my 

concerns about S.3414, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. Like many of my colleagues, I voted today to allow the Senate to fully debate and consider amendments to this bill, but I want to make 

it clear that I have some significant 

concerns about this legislation and unless improvements are made, I cannot 

support the legislation in its current 

form. 

At the outset, let me just say, I do 

firmly believe that the Congress should 

take action to address our Nation’s 

vulnerability to cyber threats. A cyber 

attack on our critical infrastructure, 

whether it be our energy grid, a regional water supply, or our financial 

markets, could significantly harm our 

economy, our national security, and 

our way of life. However, the legislation before us today still needs significant improvement before it can become 

the law of the land. 

I have heard from many in Missouri, 

including many companies operating or 

associated with the types of critical infrastructure that will be subject to the 

provisions of this legislation. They 

have raised concerns that, as currently 

structured, S. 3414 would create redundant oversight structures and add additional standards. Moreover, the bill 

may have the effect of creating a new 

Federal system that these entities will 

have to comply with even though many 

already work within well-established 

systems related to developing security 

standards and responding to cyber 

threats. I cannot support legislation 

that creates new and duplicative systems that will impact Missouri businesses in a negative way. While addressing the critical national security 

aspects of improving our Nation’s defenses against and ability to respond to 

cyber attacks, cybersecurity legislation must improve the regulatory 

scheme and streamline processes for 

businesses, not the opposite. 

Additionally, the carrot-and-stick 

approach that is created by the current 

bill would limit the sharing of cyber 

threat information, in a protected fashion, to those private entities which are 

participating in the voluntary cybersecurity program the bill would create. 

Those in the program would have to 

adopt specific standards and in return 

would receive relevant real-time cyber 

threat information. Those not accepting those standards and entering the 

program would not receive the protections of the program and would be limited in the cyber threat information 

they receive. Given that sharing such 

information could potentially thwart a 

cyber attack, it seems absurd that such 

information would go unshared because 

a particular entity was not a participant in the voluntary system. Such a 

provision inhibits the very type of information sharing we are trying to promote in order to enhance cyber security. In this respect, the carrot-andstick approach simply does not make 

sense. 

I also remain concerned with the 

scope of responsibility this legislation 

provides to the Department of Homeland Security. As we have found 

throughout the history of DHS, it has 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 26, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5451 

relied heavily upon a contract workforce in order to satisfy its mission. At 

this time, the Department does not 

have the necessary expertise it will 

need to guide a multi-agency, multisector council in evaluating whether or 

not proposed cybersecurity standards 

are sufficient to address the evolving 

nature of cyber threats. The decision 

to place DHS in such a critical role 

leadership role in regards to many aspects of the cybersecurity scheme proposed by this legislation needs to be revisited. 

I have other concerns with this legislation, but these are my chief concerns. 

I am pleased that both of the Senate’s 

leaders have indicated that this legislation will be subject to a robust 

amendment process. I look forward to 

evaluating the amendments brought 

forward to this legislation, and I am 

hopeful that the amendments will improve the bill enough so that I can support it. If not, I will oppose the legislation and send it back to the committee 

process, where more work can be undertaken to generate an acceptable 

piece of cybersecurity legislation. 

Whether now or in the future, the Senate does need to pass legislation. But it 

must be legislation that is well crafted, 

balanced, and workable for the businesses that will operate under its 

scheme. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader. 

UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST—H.R. 9

Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President, 

shortly I am going to be asking unanimous consent to pass the annual 

Burma sanctions bill that we have renewed about this time every year for 

the last decade. The bill was reported 

out of the Finance Committee on a 

voice vote last week along with a package of other unrelated measures as part 

of S. 3326. 

Some of my colleagues have some 

concerns about those other sections. 

This is unrelated to the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. As I indicated, on behalf of my colleagues I 

have offered—in fact, what I have done 

in discussions off the floor is offer to 

find a time to set up a vote on S. 3326 

on behalf of my colleagues. 

I believe a vote is the best way to resolve the impasse surrounding this bill. 

However, our friends on the other side 

have as yet not agreed to that. So in 

the absence of a vote on the larger bill, 

I think the best way to proceed is for 

the Senate to go ahead and pass this 

important and noncontroversial foreign policy measure today. 

This is a very timely issue. These 

sanctions actually expire today. If we 

do not act now to extend them, I do not 

know when the Senate will have a 

chance to address this important issue. 

Consideration of this year’s Burmese 

Freedom and Democracy Act comes 

amidst historic changes that are occurring on the ground in Burma. Aung San 

Suu Kyi, long a political prisoner of 

the country, is now actually a member 

of the Parliament. 

The National League for Democracy, 

once a completely banned organization, now actively participates in political life in Burma. For these reasons 

and others, the administration, which I 

support, has taken a number of actions 

to acknowledge the impressive reforms 

that President Thein Sein and his government have instituted thus far. The 

United States has responded by sending 

an ambassador to Burma. That is the 

first time we have had an ambassador 

there in two decades. 

The administration also largely 

waived the investment ban and financial restrictions permitting U.S. businesses to begin investing in that country. However, significant challenges in 

Burma still lie ahead. Ongoing violence 

in the Kachin State and the sectarian 

tensions in the Arakan State reflect a 

long-term challenge confronting the 

country related to national reconciliation. 

Hundreds of political prisoners remain behind bars. The constitution 

still has a number of totally undemocratic elements. And the regime’s relationship with North Korea, especially 

when it comes to arms sales with 

Pyongyang, remains an issue of grave 

concern to us. 

Sanctions with respect to Burma 

should be renewed in order to provide 

the administration with the flexibility 

it needs to encourage continued reforms in that country, to encourage 

the government to tackle these remaining tough issues. Failure to renew 

the sanctions could undermine the administration’s diplomatic efforts in 

Burma, which I support, and could send 

the wrong signal to the Burmese Government that they have done all they 

need to do. But where are we? 

Therefore, the only way I see getting 

this resolved in time to keep the sanctions from expiring today is for the 

Senate to go ahead and pass this, and 

ask the House to pick it up and pass it 

as soon as they return next week. 

Hopefully, we can resolve this extremely important issue that other 

Members have with other sections of S. 

3326, completely unrelated to the effort 

to renew Burma sanctions, and pass 

those other important trade priorities 

next week. 

In the meantime, this is a terrible 

message for us to be sending. This is an 

extremely big issue. It may sound like 

a small issue; it is a big issue in 

Burma. Secretary Clinton has been 

there, I have been there, Senator 

MCCAIN has been there, and Senator 

COLLINS. Senator FEINSTEIN has been 

active on this issue. This is no small 

matter in a country that we have been 

hoping would move in the direction of 

reform, and finally is. 

I know there is always a debate 

about whether sanctions have made a 

difference. When I was in Burma in 

January, in addition to meeting with 

Suu Kyi I was also meeting with government officials. Every single one of 

the government officials brought up 

the sanctions. It convinced me that 

they must have made a difference. 

Now, because of the changes that have 

occurred, the administration and I, 

who have been involved in this issue 

for two decades, are in total agreement 

about the way to handle it, which is to 

renew the sanctions after which the administration will waive a substantial 

number of them as a further indication 

that the sanctions remain there, although not currently operative, because of the changes that have occurred in the country. So I think it is 

a big mistake to have this important 

foreign policy matter attached to and 

stymied by, apparently, differences 

over other unrelated parts of the measure. 

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent 

that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of 

H.R. 9; provided further that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; all after the enacting clause be 

stricken and the text of section 3 of 

H.R. 3326 be inserted in lieu thereof. 

For the information of Senators, as I 

indicated, the Burma sanctions language expires today. This would avoid 

that. 

So I finally ask unanimous consent 

that the bill be read a third time, 

passed, and the motion to reconsider be 

laid upon the table. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

BLUMENTHAL). The Senator from Montana. 

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I very much appreciate and admire the efforts of the 

Senator from Kentucky to keep proposing sanctions on Burma. In fact, the 

Senator will remember that 3 or 4 

months ago I went out of my way to 

praise the Senator when he stood up 

for Burma. In fact, he may remember 

his press office called my office to say 

thank you. Gosh, Senator BAUCUS

thanked the leader, and I meant it. I 

very much admire the effort and the 

way the Senator has undertaken to 

maintain these sanctions. 

We are all very proud of Aung San 

Suu Kyi for winning the Nobel Prize, in 

London, when she visited Europe not 

long ago. I remember watching her on 

television. She has done so much for 

her country and stood so much for the 

people of Burma. It is astounding. I 

have not had the privilege of meeting 

her personally, but I have watched her 

from afar and with great admiration 

and not only would thank her but 

again thank the Senator for his efforts. 

One can say the other matters are 

unrelated, but one could also say the 

Burma issue is riding along with the 

AGOA bill. There are thousands of African women who have lost their jobs 

because we have not acted on the 

AGOA bill, and they tend to be single 

moms—thousands—because they can’t 

get orders to sell in the United States. 

Consequently, jobs in the United 

States now are in jeopardy because the 

AGOA bill has not been extended. 

It is true the AGOA bill does not expire until the end of September. That 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5452 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 26, 2012 

is true. However, as a practical matter, 

these women have lost their jobs already because American companies are 

not taking orders from African countries that are providing the apparel 

that are otherwise provided for under 

the AGOA bill. It is a huge issue for 

those African women who have lost 

their jobs as well as a lot of American 

companies that are in jeopardy because 

they can’t receive the apparel from the 

African companies if this is not extended. 

I might say, too, the DR–CAFTA bill 

is similar. That puts in jeopardy a lot 

of jobs in South Carolina and North 

Carolina. So in a certain sense it is a 

jobs bill. Both these bills are important. They are very important. This 

package was put together and agreed 

to by Senators on the committee, Republicans and Democrats both. It was 

agreed to by leadership offices, both 

sides. We worked hard, as the leader 

often does, to get consensus around 

here. So this was the thought, to put 

the bills together, and all Republicans 

agreed. 

There was one Senator who said he 

had a problem with one of the pay-fors, 

and, frankly, it is a pay-for this body 

has adopted many times. That Senator 

himself has voted for this pay-for many 

times. It just seems to me, if we break 

up the package, then the package is 

broken and it puts in jeopardy those 

other provisions because Senators will 

want to offer amendments. The Senator from Kentucky well knows, once 

we start going down that road, things 

get hung up around here; the main 

point being these are both very important bills, and the other main point 

being it was agreed to. This package 

was agreed to all the way around, and 

I think at this point it does not make 

sense to break it up. 

So I object. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, if I 

may, I believe the Burma sanctions bill 

has been renewed without additional 

matters attached to it for some 10 

years now on an annual basis. I am perplexed as to why this year it was 

turned into a package. 

I agree with the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee that it 

was agreed to. But there is a dispute 

between the chairman of the Finance 

Committee and another member of the 

Finance Committee who is on the floor, 

and Senator COBURN can speak for himself. I might say, I don’t have a dog in 

that fight. As far as I am concerned, 

that is another matter. No matter how 

important that may be, I doubt a failure to pass the other measure, which 

doesn’t expire until September, creates 

a major potential foreign policy problem which could well be created by the 

Burma sanctions bill expiring later 

today. 

I will not argue the rest of the bill is 

important or unimportant. I frankly 

don’t know much about the rest of the 

bill. I do know something about the 

Burma sanctions bill, having offered 

the original bill 10 years ago and having been on the floor as we renewed it 

annually during that period, and I am 

pretty confident this will be perceived 

in Burma as a problem. It seems to me 

it is a completely avoidable problem. 

As to the rest of it, the Senator from 

Oklahoma is here and he can speak for 

himself, so I defer to him and to the 

chairman of the Finance Committee to 

discuss the balance of the bill. But it 

would have been my hope, had the 

chairman of the Finance Committee 

not objected, since it was cleared on 

my side—and it was cleared on my side, 

regardless of previous understandings 

about putting the package together, by 

the ranking member of the Finance 

Committee, Senator HATCH, and by 

Senator COBURN—to split the Burma 

sanctions bill off and pass it freestanding today on a voice vote. 

So with respect to the consent agreement I offered, which was objected to, 

I want to make sure everybody understands there were no objections to it on 

the Republican side of the aisle. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the request of the Republican leader. 

The Senator from Montana. 

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I do not 

want to belabor the point. The Obama 

administration is opposed to splitting 

the package apart. They are in favor of 

keeping the package as it is, and I 

think for good reason because the administration favors both Burma as well 

as AGOA and DR–CAFTA. That is the 

reason. They are both very important. 

It is for that reason I think it makes 

sense. 

The Senator is correct. It is very 

easy to resolve this thing by proceeding with Burma and AGOA. But if 

the leader wants to keep talking, I am 

more than willing, over the next week, 

to see if there is another resolution to 

work this out. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I 

would just ask a question of the Senator. What I hear is that the Democratic administration and Democratic 

Senators are opposed to passing the 

Burma sanctions bill today freestanding? Is that what I hear the chairman of the Finance Committee saying? 

Mr. BAUCUS. That is not what the 

Senator heard me say. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Then why did the 

Senator object to the request? 

Mr. BAUCUS. Because the administration and I want them both. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. But the Senator 

can’t get them both unless he can work 

this out with my good friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, who is on the 

floor and who may want to address this 

matter. 

Mr. BAUCUS. I am more than willing 

to sit down and try to work this out, 

but at this point I think any attempt 

to split them out is to jeopardize the 

AGOA bill, and as I mentioned earlier, 

there are already thousands of women 

who have lost their jobs in Africa because of our delay in passing AGOA. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Let me make sure 

I understand where we are. The consent 

agreement to pass the Burma sanctions 

bill today, before it expires, is clear on 

this side of the aisle—clear. The chairman of the Finance Committee has announced, to my surprise, that the administration does not favor allowing 

Burma sanctions to pass today because 

it is attached to something related to 

other matters. 

So make no mistake about it, we 

have, for the first time in the history 

of this issue, turned it into a partisan 

matter. We have spoken with one voice 

in America relating to Burma, under 

administrations of both parties and 

Senates of both parties. Yet today, for 

the first time, we have a partisan split 

over an issue about which America 

ought to be speaking with one voice. 

I basically have said all I have to say. 

I do want to hear from Senator 

COBURN. I know he has strong feelings 

about the other part of the measure 

about which I am basically not familiar. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma. 

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, first of 

all, I would like to say I support all 

three of these measures, in terms of 

their passing. What I don’t support is 

continuing the habit that has put this 

country $16 trillion in debt. 

To clarify, as a member of the Finance Committee, if one reads my 

opening statement at that hearing, in 

that markup, I objected to this bill on 

the basis of pay-fors. I offered two separate amendments that, on the floor, 

everybody would agree are germane because the money to pay for the $200 

million comes out of trade areas. Yet 

they were rejected as nongermane by 

the chairman. So they weren’t offered 

because he said he would reject them. 

So to create the impression there was 

no objection to the pay-for in this bill 

and that everybody agreed is inaccurate, to say the least. 

I called Senator COONS of Delaware, 

who is interested in this, and I called 

Senator BAUCUS when this came up, 

and I told him I have a plan so we can 

get this all done this week. I was willing to lose a vote on the amendment to 

have an opportunity to offer the 

amendment and give my side of the 

story by splitting these two so the 

House could pass it. The House has now 

gone home. Burma sanctions are no 

longer available to be passed, except if 

we were to do something extraordinary 

with the House, which I understand 

from the Speaker can happen. So 

Burma sanctions could happen this 

week. 

But I wish to go back to the more important point. Regardless of whether I 

voted for something in the past, using 

the type of pay-for that is in this bill is 

what I call the Wimpy mechanism: 

Wimpy drives up to Wendy’s and orders 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 26, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5453 

a hamburger, and when he gets around 

to the window he says: Don’t worry 

about it, I will be back in 10 days to 

pay for it. What we have done is use 

custom user fees over 10 years to collect enough money to pay for $200 million. 

With the waste that is in this government, for us to use a 10-year pay-for on 

something that will be expended over 3 

years means we are not capable of addressing the much bigger issues in 

front of our country. If we can’t find 

$200 million in a $3.6 trillion budget, we 

are unqualified to be here. 

What I would say to my friends and 

my colleague on the Senate Finance 

Committee is that somebody has to 

start saying no. I would remind everyone of a lecture I got from Senator 

Pete Domenici on a land bill about 2 

years ago. He said: We have always 

done it that way. I said: You know 

what, you are right, and that is why we 

are in trouble. So the financing mechanism on this bill denies the situation 

we are in and charges out over 10 years 

custom user fees to pay for it. 

No other American business, no other 

company, no other family gets that 

kind of luxury, especially when they 

are in debt at 105 percent of their GDP. 

If we look at where we are, the average 

American, what we can say is that we 

are taking in $53,000, we are spending 

$73,000, and what we actually owe is 

$380,000. We can’t keep doing that. That 

is how it would relate to the individual 

family in this country. 

The objection was not on the bills. 

There was no lack of effort on my part 

to reach out and solve this problem before now and now the minority leader 

has offered a way to solve the problem 

on the sanctions for Burma and it is 

objected to. So not only do we not get 

to offer amendments in committee, we 

do not get to offer amendments on the 

floor. The one thing we need to accomplish today we are not going to accomplish because we don’t want to allow 

amendments. 

Because we want to keep doing it the 

way we have always done it. And the 

way we have always done it has bankrupted our country and stolen from our 

children and grandchildren. It is not 

acceptable anymore. 

That is the truth. Everything else is 

the game that Washington plays. And I 

will tell my colleagues, I am still willing to work on this. I have a commitment to the Senator from Delaware 

that next week, if this comes up, I will 

be the first to offer that amendment 

and get it out of the way, taking a very 

short period of time with the Senate. 

But I want a recorded vote of the Senators in this body that they want to 

steal the customs user fees for 10 years 

for just a $200 million pay-for. If that is 

what you really want to do, then vote 

that way. But go out and defend it instead of taking something this administration has recommended we cut— 

which is what I am using to pay for it, 

something this administration has recommended to pay for it—and vote 

against what your own President 

says—here is something we need to 

eliminate. 

I don’t get it. The American people 

don’t get it. No wonder we have a 9-percent approval rating. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware. 

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to briefly contribute what I can to this debate. 

One of the great honors, as the Presiding Officer knows, in being a freshman is the opportunity to preside. I 

had the opportunity to preside when 

the Republican leader came to the 

floor and spoke to Burma sanctions. So 

I just wanted to say to the Republican 

leader that because of that speech, I 

have familiarized myself with the issue 

of Burma sanctions that he spoke to 

earlier. I do think it is important that 

we move to it. I do think it is important to move forward on it. 

But the Republican leader made the 

comment earlier that he doesn’t much 

understand the other part of the bill, 

which is AGOA, the African Growth 

and Opportunity Act. I choose to stand 

briefly to speak to that because I am 

the chair of the African Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 

Senator ISAKSON and I joined with 

Congresswoman BASS and Congressman 

SMITH in twice receiving dozens of Ambassadors from across the continent 3 

months ago and 9 months ago as they 

expressed their grave concern about 

the thousands of mostly women all 

across the continent who are losing 

their jobs as we delay. 

The AGOA reauthorization expires in 

September, and I am grateful for Chairman BAUCUS and for his vigorous pursuit of renewal in a timely fashion. 

AGOA needs to be renewed promptly, 

not in September. In part, I believe 

this is why the administration has insisted on holding together Burma sanctions and this AGOA reauthorization— 

it is because of the urgency of getting 

AGOA reauthorized. 

It dates back to the Clinton administration. It was first signed into law a 

dozen years ago. I think it has real importance for our view in Africa, for how 

the United States is viewed in Africa, 

for our bilateral relations with more 

than a dozen countries. I would be 

happy to answer questions about it. 

But we have three different issues 

here: the concerns the Senator from 

Oklahoma has raised about the pay-for, 

and I respect his concerns about budget 

and budgetary discipline and dealing 

with our deficit; the concerns the Republican leader has raised about Burma 

and about sanctions and about our ongoing role as a global leader in pressing 

for the liberation of people and process 

in Burma; and the concerns many 

other Senators and I have shared about 

timely reauthorization of the African 

Growth and Opportunity Act. Unfortunately, the three of them intersect in a 

way that today is preventing us from 

moving forward. 

It is my hope that the Republican 

leader, the chairman of the Finance 

Committee, the Senator from Oklahoma, and I can sit down and craft 

some responsible compromise that allows this to move forward because, if 

my understanding is correct, it is the 

concerns of the Senator from Oklahoma that are preventing us from moving forward at this point, and it is the 

administration’s concerns that are preventing breaking apart the Burma 

sanctions and AGOA sanctions. And 

there is a third provision relating to 

CAFTA, if I am not mistaken. So if we 

could work together in a way that 

finds a responsible path forward, it is 

still possible. 

There is bipartisan support in the 

House for the passage of this package. 

In fact, I believe they were prepared to 

pass it by unanimous consent earlier 

this week and only hesitated to proceed because they heard there was a 

hold here in the Senate. 

I would like to work together in a 

way that can demonstrate to the people of Burma, to the people of Africa, 

and to the people around the world 

that this greatest deliberative body on 

Earth can still work out issues of this 

scale in a timely fashion. So I offer my 

willingness to work together to find a 

path forward either tonight or in the 

week ahead. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana. 

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I don’t 

mean to belabor the issue. I see the Republican leader has left the floor. I 

have just a couple of points. 

One, I don’t want the impression to 

be left here that this is a partisan matter. I don’t want the impression to be 

left here that one party favors Burma 

sanctions and the other doesn’t, and 

the same with respect to AGOA provisions. The fact is, these are both totally bipartisan. Both political parties 

favor these measures. It is just a matter of working out a way to pass them. 

The Senator from Delaware has made 

a very good point, so let’s see if we can 

work things out within the next couple 

or 3 days. 

The Senator from Oklahoma makes a 

very valid point, too; that is, sometimes we pay for measures around here 

with measures that take several years 

to actually pay for. It is a common 

practice around here. And to say we 

have done it once does not necessarily 

mean it is right. 

But I say to my good friend from 

Oklahoma, who has voted for this kind 

of measure 11 times, by my count, and 

once even on the Burma bill, that when 

we work over the next several weeks 

and next several months on resolving 

the fiscal cliff and tax reform, it will 

be a good opportunity to find ways to 

reduce our budget deficits, both spending and revenue, and an opportunity to 

address it in a way that does not do violence to them and that respects the 

concept the Senator from Oklahoma 

was mentioning. He has mentioned a 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5454 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 26, 2012 

concept that applies not just with respect to customs user fees but for a lot 

of tax provisions around here, and I 

think it is something we should talk 

about and figure out how we want to 

handle it. But in the meantime, I just 

suggest that—let’s keep talking. There 

are a few days left here before we leave 

for the August recess. 

I thank my colleagues for working 

together to try to find a solution. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire. 

GUOR MARIAL AND THE 2012 OLYMPICS

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, tomorrow the attention of the world will 

turn to London as we witness the opening of the 2012 Summer Olympics. Over 

10,000 athletes representing 204 nations 

from around the world will be competing in hundreds of sporting events 

at the games of the 30th Olympiad. 

Here in the United States, we will be 

cheering on the 529 U.S. athletes as 

they look to bring home the gold for 

the United States of America. The 

Olympics no doubt will have countless 

stories of triumph and disappointment, 

competition and camaraderie. 

I rise today to share the remarkable 

story of one particular athlete who will 

be competing this year. His story is 

one of inspiring triumph of character 

and spirit. But until just days ago, this 

Olympian had no flag to compete 

under. This story is about a talented 

young runner named Guor Marial 

whose mere survival in southern Sudan 

defied the odds. Having escaped the 

bloodshed and violence in war-torn 

Sudan, Guor found his way to my home 

State of New Hampshire as a teenage 

refugee. Who could have imagined that 

in just over a decade, Guor would be 

applying for U.S. citizenship and traveling to London to compete in the 

Olympic marathon? 

Guor was born in a town in what is 

now part of the fledgling country of 

South Sudan. Many of his family and 

friends, including his brother, were 

killed at the hands of Sudanese security forces. Many more died of starvation or disease brought on by the violence and unspeakable crimes committed by these Sudanese forces. 

Before escaping Sudan, Guor was a 

victim of violence on numerous occasions. As a child, he was kidnapped 

from his hometown and enslaved as a 

laborer before eventually finding a way 

to escape and return to his family. 

Guor was severely beaten by the Sudanese police and had to spend days in a 

hospital to recover. Finally, he was 

able to flee to neighboring Egypt and 

eventually to the peace and safety of 

New Hampshire as a refugee seeking 

asylum. 

Guor arrived in my home State of 

New Hampshire in 2001, almost exactly 

11 years ago. He remembers that day 

well and still considers New Hampshire 

his home. He lived in Concord, the 

State capital, moving in with the families of his friends, teammates, and his 

cross-country coach for 2 years in order 

to graduate from high school. The contrast between Guor’s former life and 

his new life is stark. In Sudan, he was 

running in fear for his life. In New 

Hampshire, he was running for the joy 

of athletic competition and to be part 

of a team. 

Amazingly, in only his second official 

marathon, Guor ran fast enough to 

qualify for the 2012 London Olympics. 

Given his unique situation, however, it 

looked as if the bureaucracy would triumph over his bravery and that Guor 

might not be able to compete because 

according to the rules of the International Olympic Committee, permanent residents of a country are not permitted to compete on that country’s 

team. As a result, Guor can’t compete 

under the American flag because he is 

not yet a full citizen. In addition, Guor 

can’t run for the newly recognized 

country of South Sudan because it is 

such a new country, it doesn’t yet have 

an official Olympic committee. 

The International Olympic Committee suggested that Guor compete as 

a member of the Sudanese team, and 

the Sudanese Government extended 

him an invitation. But Guor rightfully 

refused, explaining that running for 

Sudan ‘‘would be a disappointment and 

an embarrassment to me and the people of South Sudan who died for freedom, including my brother.’’ Guor was 

not comfortable running on behalf of 

the country that tortured and murdered so many of his family members. 

That solution would have been cruel 

and unacceptable. 

Fortunately, after some pressure by 

Refugees International and other 

friends of Guor who wrote to the International Olympic Committee on his behalf, we received the great news this 

week that the IOC executive board has 

decided to make an exception for Guor. 

He will run in the marathon as an independent Olympic athlete under the 

great Olympic flag. I want to thank the 

International Olympic Committee for 

this very appropriate ruling. In addition, I want to thank the U.S. Olympic 

Committee, the U.S. Department of 

State, and the other friends of Guor 

who worked so hard to make his participation possible. 

As he runs under that five-ringed 

flag, long a symbol of hope for peace in 

our world, Guor will run with the support of his family, his New Hampshire 

supporters, Americans everywhere, and 

his new country, South Sudan. I have a 

feeling that such support might help 

him run even faster. 

We are so proud of Guor in New 

Hampshire and proud that in the 

United States someone who has lived 

through such tragedy and adversity 

can start a new life and rise to such incredible heights. 

Scott Hamilton, an American Olympic gold medalist, once said, ‘‘Most 

other competitions are individual competitions. But the Olympic games is 

something that belongs to everybody.’’ 

No matter the outcome in London, the 

story of Guor Marial and the adversity 

he has overcome belongs to everyone. 

Win or lose, he will stand as a lasting 

inspiration for people around the globe 

and as a tribute to the greatness that 

is the United States of America. I look 

forward to welcoming Guor home from 

the Olympics as a winner, regardless of 

the outcome of the marathon. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado. 

COLORADO DROUGHT

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I am 

here tonight on a different topic than 

the Senator from New Hampshire, but I 

wish to congratulate her on her fine 

work here. I know she doesn’t need or 

wouldn’t want me to say that, but the 

people of New Hampshire are so lucky 

to be represented by her. And this is 

exactly why—a reminder that our 

Olympic athletes are about to start, I 

hope, winning gold medals. I suspect 

they will win the most in this summer’s Olympics. We are looking forward to that. 

The Senator mentioned marathons, 

which brought to mind what I want to 

talk about tonight, which is the farm 

bill—an elegant segue from one marathon to another. I want to talk about it 

in the context of the severe drought 

that is facing Colorado and all of rural 

America, and I want to acknowledge 

the administration’s ongoing efforts to 

provide Coloradans with disaster relief 

during this difficult summer of fires 

and drought. 

We need to pass a 5-year farm bill as 

quickly as possible to address the challenges we are seeing in farm country. 

We have done the work to get an agreement on the Senate bill. In fact, we 

passed the 5-year farm bill in this Senate. It was a strong, bipartisan bill. I 

would like to thank the Senator from 

Michigan, DEBBIE STABENOW, and the 

ranking member of the committee for 

their incredible leadership in working 

together, both side of the aisle, never 

in a partisan way, to produce among 

other things the only bipartisan deficit 

reduction that any committee, House 

or Senate, has produced in this Congress—$24 billion of deficit reduction 

that has been agreed to by Republicans 

and Democrats. It ends direct payments to producers, which is one of the 

most substantial reforms we have seen 

in agriculture policy in a long time, 

and it strengthens the conservation 

title of the farm bill, which is very important to my State and to the West. 

Colorado has a $40 billion agriculture 

sector that extends to all corners of 

our State. Farming and ranching are 

two things we do extremely well. The 

Senator from Iowa is here tonight, and 

his farmers do it extremely well in 

Iowa as well. 

Producers in Colorado and nationwide are experiencing the worst 

drought in 50 years. While Colorado is 

certainly no stranger to water challenges, this year’s growing season has 

been particularly tough—to put it 

mildly. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 26, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5455 

According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, nearly our entire State is designated as an extreme drought area. 

This designation means we are experiencing major damage to crops and 

pastureland, as well as widespread 

water shortages. While this designation 

tells us a lot, we only need to ask the 

farmers and ranchers about how the 

dry conditions are threatening their 

operations. 

I met recently with a group of corn 

growers from eastern Colorado. Take a 

look at what these farmers are up 

against. This is Steve Scott’s cornfield 

18 miles southeast of Burlington, CO, a 

town of 4,200 people near the Kansas 

border. This crop—and many others in 

the region—has withered under long 

stretches of high temperatures with 

little or no precipitation to help. 

The Department of Agriculture reports that 50 percent of Colorado’s corn 

production is in either poor or very 

poor condition. The drought has also 

taken a significant toll on our cattle 

producers. Colorado is one of America’s 

top beef producers. Right now 75 percent of pastureland in Colorado, approximately 900,000 acres—and I am not 

sure how that measures up to the Presiding Officer’s State, but it is pretty 

close to that size—is rated as either 

poor or very poor in condition. Dry 

pasture and feed shortages have led 

ranchers to liquidate their herds early, 

well before they have realized their full 

size and value. 

The Greeley, CO, auction producers’ 

barn is seeing double the sales activity 

right now as compared to the same 

time last year because ranchers are 

selling their cattle below full weight 

and maturity. They are losing anywhere from $200 to $400 a head. 

Next week Carl Hansen of Livermore, 

CO, is selling 160 of his steers and 90 

heifers. On average, each animal will 

be sold 150 pounds underweight due to 

the drought conditions. If beef is selling at $1.50 a pound, that is $56,000—actually a little more than that—of lost 

revenue for Carl Hansen and his family. 

The consequences of this drought extend well beyond farm country. The 

damage to our farms and ranches affect 

other sectors of the economy—from 

transportation to energy, from banking 

to retail. We all know there is nothing 

Congress can do to stop the drought or 

prevent the next one from coming, but 

what we can do is give our farmers and 

ranchers the tools they need to manage 

this drought and plan for the future by 

passing a 5-year farm bill. 

We hear a lot about uncertainty in 

these two Chambers. I can’t imagine a 

set of circumstances creating more uncertainty in a difficult situation than 

that. 

Now we hear that the House leadership is planning a 1-year punt on this 

whole conversation, one more expression that Washington, DC, has become 

the land of flickering lights, providing 

very little opportunity for people to be 

able to plan and have predictability. 

What is wrong with the Senatepassed bipartisan farm bill that had 

the support of 64 Senators? Sixty-four 

Senators, Democrats and Republicans. 

Some people voted against it because 

they didn’t think it was adequate to 

their region, but this was not a partisan vote. Neither the majority nor 

the minority vote was a partisan vote. 

This was the Senate operating as the 

Senate is meant to operate. 

A 5-year bill provides our agriculture 

community with much needed certainty and predictability, but now it is 

being held up in the House by politics. 

Let’s be clear: No one is pretending 

that the farm bill can correct bad 

weather. Our producers are not waiting 

on the farm bill to do what they do 

best. Colorado will continue innovating 

and increasing productivity, but the 

last thing on Earth they need is to 

have Washington’s unfinished business 

hanging around their necks. 

A 5-year farm bill will provide producers with a set of tools for managing 

through this drought and planning for 

the future. The 1-year bill being discussed over in the House by the leadership doesn’t recognize—or is unwilling 

to recognize—the agriculture community’s need to do long-term planning. 

Among many other important provisions, the Senate farm bill contains revamped risk management programs 

like crop insurance, which is what I 

heard was needed by our farmers, and 

improvements farmers requested to 

help manage a severe drought exactly 

like the one we are going through right 

now. This is the point of that provision. A 1-year bill doesn’t have any of 

those provisions. 

Corn farmers on Colorado’s eastern 

plains could lose 40 percent or more of 

their revenue this season. We need 

these reforms and the predictability of 

the Senate bill. Our bill also contains 

permanent disaster programs that provide responsible assistance to producers in need. Some of these programs, such as the livestock disaster 

program, expired in September 2011, almost a year ago. If Congress takes the 

easy way out and does a 1-year extension, our livestock producers will get 

no relief—none. This means no disaster 

assistance for ranchers whose pasture 

is too dry to feed their cattle. 

Who is going to explain to the people 

selling at the Greeley auction barn 

why this is not a priority for our Congress in the middle of the worst 

drought in decades? 

The House Agriculture Committee 

passed a 5-year farm bill with a strong 

bipartisan 35-to-11 vote. Again, this is 

not the partisan dysfunctionality we 

talked about for so many months on 

this floor. We have two bipartisan bills: 

One was passed out of committee on 

the House side with broad bipartisan 

support, and one was passed on the 

Senate floor with broad bipartisan support. It is not surprising that I am not 

the only person who is calling for a 

long-term extension—a 5-year extension. There are 79 House Members, including 41 Republicans, who wrote to 

the Speaker last week asking him to 

bring the long-term farm bill to the 

floor. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter signed by 79 House 

Members be printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, 

Washington, DC, July 20, 2012. 

DEAR SPEAKER BOEHNER, MAJORITY LEADER

CANTOR, DEMOCRATIC LEADER PELOSI, AND

DEMOCRATIC WHIP HOYER: Many current farm 

bill policies expire on September 30, 2012. 

The House Agriculture Committee passed 

H.R. 6083, the Federal Agriculture Reform 

and Risk Management (FARRM) Act, or the 

2012 Farm Bill, on July 12th with a strong bipartisan vote of 35–11. While by no means 

perfect, this farm bill is needed for producers 

and those who rely on sound agriculture policy and nutrition programs during difficult 

economic times. 

The House Agriculture Committee has 

done its work and we now ask that you make 

time on the floor of the House to consider 

this legislation, so that it can be debated, 

conferenced, and ultimately passed into law, 

before the current bill expires. We need to 

continue to tell the American success story 

of agriculture and work to ensure we have 

strong policies in place so that producers can 

continue to provide an abundant, affordable 

and safe food supply. 

We all share the goal of giving small businesses certainty in these challenging economic times. Agriculture supports nearly 16 

million jobs nationwide and over 45 million 

people are helped each year by the nutrition 

programs in the farm bill. We have a tremendous opportunity to set the course of farm 

and nutrition policy for another five years 

while continuing to maintain and support 

these jobs nationwide. 

The message from our constituents and 

rural America is clear: we need a farm bill 

now. We ask that you bring a farm bill up before the August District Work Period so that 

the House will have the opportunity to work 

its will. We ask that you make this legislation a priority of the House as it is critically 

important to rural and urban Americans 

alike. 

We appreciate your consideration of this 

request and look forward to working with 

you to advance the FARRM Act. 

Mr. BENNET. They wrote: 

The message from our constituents and 

rural America is clear; we need a farm bill 

now. We ask that you bring a farm bill up before the August District Work Period. 

They went on to say: 

We ask that you make this legislation a 

priority of the House as it is critically important to rural and urban Americans alike. 

Representative RICK BERG, a Republican from North Dakota, took to the 

floor last week and said: 

Now is the time for the House to act, the 

time for the farm bill now. 

JO ANN EMERSON, a Republican Congresswoman from Missouri, told reporters that ‘‘there are problems with my 

farmers who need to make planning decisions.’’ 

We are seeing that exact same uncertainty plaguing our farmers and ranchers in Colorado. Yet here we are again. 

We have seen this before in Washington. We are pretty good at starting 

conversations, but we are not very 

good at finishing them. We are kicking 

the can down the road once again, but 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5456 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 26, 2012 

this is the farm bill, which is a bipartisan effort that rarely, if ever, has 

been used as a political football around 

this place. 

Three days ago David Rogers wrote 

an article, which I think accurately describes our dilemma. It was in Politico. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article also be printed in 

the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

[From Politico, July 23, 2012] 

CONGRESS DELAYS FARM BILL AS DROUGHT

SPREADS

(By David Rogers) 

To understand how far this Congress will 

go to kick the proverbial can down the road, 

consider the farm bill—yes, the farm bill. 

In the midst of a severe drought, the House 

Republican leaders are proposing to walk 

away from farm states and decades of precedent by not calling up the new five-year plan 

before the current law expires Sept. 30. 

Whatever its flaws, the bill promises $35 

billion in 10-year savings from exactly the 

type of mandatory spending that Congress 

promised to tackle in last summer’s debt accord. But rather than disrupt its political 

messaging, the GOP would put it all at risk 

by delaying action until after the November 

elections. 

There’s little institutional memory left in 

the Capitol—or perspective on the accumulation of cans rolling down the road these 

days. But the farm bill delay is new ground 

for any Congress. 

Never before in modern times has a farm 

bill reported from the House Agriculture 

Committee been so blocked. POLITICO 

looked back at 50 years of farm bills and 

found nothing like this. There have been 

long debates, often torturous negotiations 

with the Senate and a famous meltdown in 

1995 when the House Agriculture Committee 

couldn’t produce a bill. But no House farm 

bill, once out of committee, has been kept 

off the floor while its deadline passes. 

If pushed into November’s lame-duck session, farmers will join Medicare physicians 

whose pay will be running out, idled workers 

worried about jobless benefits, and very likely, millions of families faced with expiring 

tax breaks. 

For all the backslapping over the recent 

transportation bill, that measure expires in 

just 15 months. The Democratic Senate no 

longer even tries to do 12-month appropriations bills. Already in mid-July—when the 

floor used to be humming—the ‘‘smart 

money’’ is plotting a stop-gap continuing 

resolution to get to November or beyond. 

Such a CR was once treated as a backstop 

by the Appropriations committees. Now the 

practice is so prevalent in all areas of government that the letters might stand for 

‘‘Congress Retreats.’’ 

‘‘It’s to the point where you almost think 

you should vote against extensions because 

they are extensions,’’ Rep. George Miller (D– 

Calif.) told POLITICO. ‘‘If you were looking 

at the United States from outside, you look 

and you say, ‘What are these people? 

Fools?’’’ 

Elections do matter, and there’s some logic 

to letting the voters reshuffle the deck before tackling tough issues. But that’s not 

what’s happening here. 

The presidential campaigns are already 

being criticized for lacking all substance. 

But whoever wins, neither President Barack 

Obama nor Mitt Romney has shown any appetite for this debate—or even knowledge of 

farm issues. 

The Senate has already approved its farm 

bill; even if Republicans were to win control 

in November, the GOP’s majority will be so 

narrow that Democrats will be able to block 

wholesale changes. In the House, the only 

certainty about a lame duck is there will be 

even more unhappy people hanging around. 

No, the real reason for Speaker John Boehner (R–Ohio) to delay the farm bill is not because there will be better answers after the 

election. It’s because he doesn’t like the answers he sees before. 

The farm bill came out of the House Agriculture Committee on a strong bipartisan 35– 

11 vote July 12. Nearly a year after the August debt accords—and eight months after 

the November collapse of the deficit supercommittee—it is the closest this Congress 

has come to enacting real deficit reduction 

from mandatory spending. 

But it’s not perfect, and Boehner’s Republicans are split regionally and ideologically, 

with the right demanding still greater savings and a more free-market approach to agriculture policy. 

Given Democratic concerns over the depth 

of the food stamp cuts already made, Boehner says there are not 218 votes for passage. 

Rather than wrestle with this problem, it’s 

easier to run out the clock with symbolic 

anti-red tape, anti-tax votes on which the 

GOP is more united. 

Senate Democrats have kicked their share 

of cans as well. First no spring budget resolution. Then no summer appropriations debate. All under the watch of a majority leader—Sen. Harry Reid (D–Nev.)—who served for 

years on the Senate Appropriations Committee. 

Yet there’s something bigger about the 

farm bill. 

Perhaps because it is a five-year event and 

so fundamental to one bright spot in the 

economy. Or maybe it’s the pounding 

drought across the country that gives pause. 

Farmers live by nature’s calendar, not continuing resolutions. And by failing to act, 

Congress can seem even more detached from 

the real lives of everyday people. 

Changes in the Washington press foster 

this detachment. Major newspapers are more 

prone to editorials than real reporting on the 

debate. Regional papers, once the backbone 

of farm coverage, have closed their bureaus. 

In the new Capitol trend, some of the most 

experienced agriculture reporters report to 

clients—not the public. 

The biggest irony may be Boehner himself. 

The speaker, after all, spent his early years 

on the Agriculture Committee and prides 

himself on being a ‘‘regular order’’ and prochairman leader. He chastises Obama regularly for doing precisely this: kicking the 

can down the road. 

As if to remind him, Rep. Rick Berg (R– 

N.D.), a Boehner favorite now running for 

the Senate, took to the floor Thursday just 

minutes after the speaker had again ducked 

farm bill questions at his weekly news conference. 

‘‘Now is the time for the House to act,’’ 

Berg told his colleagues. ‘‘The time for the 

farm bill is now.’’ 

The biggest Republican divisions are also 

where the greatest savings lie: the commodity and nutrition titles. 

Both the House and Senate put an end to 

direct cash payments to farmers, a long-demanded reform saving about $5 billion a 

year. The dispute is over how much of that 

money is reinvested in new subsidies—and 

where. 

The Senate bet heavily on a new shallowloss revenue-protection program geared to 

Midwest corn and soybean producers. The 

House whittles this down to make room for 

more of a traditional countercyclical program that protects against deep losses but is 

keyed to government-set target prices—a 

taboo for free-market types. 

Southern rice, peanut and wheat producers 

stand to do far better under the House approach, but the two bills appear to lunge in 

opposite regional directions. Corn and soybean growers can almost lock in profits in 

the early years of the Senate plan. At the 

same time, the House cotton package costs 

nearly 20 percent more than what was already viewed as a rich Senate deal. And a $14 

per hundredweight target price for rice is 

higher than what many other crops got, 

when measured against government data for 

production costs. 

The 13 Southern states are the backbone of 

the House GOP’s majority, contributing 102 

votes or more than 40 percent of the conference. This is also where the lines are 

clearest, not just for crops but also foodstamp savings. 

House Agriculture Committee Chairman 

Frank Lucas (R–Okla.) and the committee’s 

ranking Democrat, Minnesota Rep. Collin 

Peterson, had hoped to thread this needle by 

offering a new national eligibility standard 

for the nutrition program somewhat to the 

right of Texas’s food stamp rules. But for the 

majority of Southern states, it meant a modest increase from 130 percent to 140 percent 

of poverty as the high-end income cap—and 

so it ran aground in the committee. 

Peterson, refusing to be discouraged, has 

plunged back into the fray, trying to find 

some compromise on food stamps and still 

hoping that Boehner will relent on moving 

the farm bill this summer. 

‘‘Collin is a CPA by training. He’s a numbers guy. He’s very focused as a Blue Dog 

about the budgetary consequences of our actions,’’ Lucas told POLITICO. ‘‘I think he’s 

basically on the right track as he’s described 

it to me. The question really comes down to: 

will we wind up with floor time?’’ 

And himself? 

The morning after his late night markup, 

Lucas sought out Boehner and Majority 

Leader Eric Cantor (R–Va.) face to face. 

‘‘They thanked me, smiled at me and left it 

at that,’’ Lucas said. 

He himself is worried—like Republicans in 

the Senate—that simply passing a shortterm extension of the current farm law will 

not be an easy matter in September. Having 

spent the better part of a year saying direct 

payments must end, will Congress want to 

extend them? 

‘‘I’m trying to maintain a good solid working relationship with my leadership,’’ Lucas 

smiles. ‘‘I’m trying to be a positive advocate 

for why I believe our bipartisan bill deserves 

floor time.’’ 

‘‘I’ve alerted staff to be ready to go on a 

moment’s notice, and I will also tell you 

there are external events that could impact 

the situation. If this drought continues in 

the West and Midwest, it could drive members to want to see some action.’’ 

Mr. BENNET. To quote Mr. Rogers: 

Never before in modern times has a farm 

bill reported from the House Agriculture 

Committee been so blocked. 

Never before in modern times. I suspect it is true in ancient times as well, 

but it has certainly been true in modern times. Rogers tells us that he 

‘‘looked back at 50 years of farm bills 

and found nothing like this.’’ He continues: 

Farmers live by nature’s calendar, not continuing resolutions. 

I could never have said it so eloquently myself. He also said: 

And by failing to act, Congress can seem 

even more detached from the real lives of everyday people. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 26, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5457 

I would not have thought it was possible that this place could seem more 

detached from the everyday lives of the 

American people than it already appears to be. We found a way of doing 

that, and that is by failing to pass this 

bipartisan farm bill through the Congress in a timely way that is essential 

for people who are suffering through 

this kind of drought. 

I think Mr. Rogers’ observation is exactly right, and I have been on this 

floor many times before saying the 

people at home in Colorado—Republicans, Democrats, and Independents— 

don’t identify with the cartoon of a 

conversation that we are having in 

Washington, DC, right now. I can’t 

think of a clearer example than the 

failure to act on this bipartisan piece 

of legislation. This is legislation that 

would immediately help people all 

across our country, all across America, 

who are struggling today. 

Mr. President, think for just a moment about our farmers in Colorado 

and rural communities just like our 

communities all across this wonderful 

country. Our farmers and ranchers are 

experiencing the worst drought in over 

half a century. Who is going to look in 

the eyes of our farmers in Middle 

America and tell them our dysfunctional politics will prevent this bill 

from moving forward? 

Who is going to tell Steve Scott and 

Carl Hansen that this bill isn’t going to 

be a priority in the Congress, that we 

are just going to take our recess and go 

home for a month not having passed 

this bipartisan piece of legislation, the 

only manifestation and example of bipartisan deficit reduction in either the 

House or the Senate in this entire Congress? 

I implore the House to figure out how 

to come to its senses and pass a 5-year 

bill along the lines of the bill that was 

passed out of their committee, and 

then together we can have a conference 

and decide how we are going to move 

this bill forward on behalf of farmers 

and ranchers all across my State and 

the United States of America. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa. 

Mr. GRASSLEY. I didn’t come to the 

floor to speak about the farm bill because I did that yesterday. I want to 

assure the Senator from Colorado that 

I listened to everything he said, and I 

agree with him. That was my plea in 

maybe a little broader context yesterday in asking that the House of Representatives take up the bill. Also, the 

House brags, legitimately so, about 

being fiscally conservative, so I agree 

with what the Senator from Colorado 

said. This may be the only opportunity—presumably the only opportunity—to pass a farm bill or any bill 

that saves money from previous programs of previous years. I compliment 

the Senator from Colorado. 

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Mr. President, I come to the floor to 

discuss what I consider a disturbing 

trend that is occurring in this country. 

A vicious attack is underway on the 

right to freedom of speech that is protected by the first amendment. It needs 

to be highlighted, and hopefully it will 

stop. Free speech is one of the most important rights that Americans enjoy. 

Speech on public issues is the way democracy discusses and debates the important questions of the day. Many 

great political movements in this 

country’s history depended upon this 

first amendment right, freedom of 

speech. Even when Martin Luther King 

was jailed and his supporters subjected 

to violence, free speech enabled him to 

change the views and practices of an 

entire nation. Today too many government officials seek to shut up people 

who disagree with them rather than debate those people and debate those 

issues. 

There have been a series of recent incidents to which I want to refer. Consider recently that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in the past 

month has held two hearings that 

prove my point. A hearing was held on 

a bill that would criminalize supposedly deceptive statements in advance of elections. It would allow the 

government to criminalize political 

speech based on its content. It would 

risk government selectively choosing 

to prosecute its political opponents. t 

would allow political candidates to 

make accusations against their political opponents. So it would chill candidates from speaking. 

A few days after our hearing, the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Alvarez 

case confirmed all the free speech problems with that bill. But even after that 

decision, the Justice Department, to 

my disappointment, issued a letter in 

support of the bill. That letter made no 

mention of any first amendment considerations. I have heard no indication 

that the committee will not mark up 

this bill which represents a grave 

threat to freedom of speech. 

This week, the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on the legislative 

responses to the Citizens United case. 

In that decision, the Supreme Court 

ruled that the first amendment’s free 

speech guarantee protects the rights of 

corporations and unions to make independent expenditures in support of candidates or on any particular policy 

issue that they want to speak out on. 

The ruling has no effect on campaign 

contributions. There are proposals in 

this body to amend the Bill of Rights, 

the first amendment, for the very first 

time, to allow the government to limit 

how much candidates can spend on 

speech and, therefore, the amount of 

speech that the government will permit. And there are proposed constitutional amendments to prevent corporations and labor unions from spending 

in elections. To me, this is very serious 

business that we ought to be raising a 

red flag about. 

It is worth remembering what rule 

the Obama administration asked the 

Supreme Court to adopt in Citizens 

United. The Justice Department argued that the government should be 

able to ban books that contained even 

one sentence that expressly advocated 

the election or defeat of a candidate if 

those books were published or distributed by a corporation or a union. This 

administration argued in favor of banning books. In light of the practice of 

totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, this administration’s position on 

free speech is very astonishing. The Supreme Court quite rightly rejected the 

argument of the administration on 

that particular point. 

It reminded the news media, which is 

organized in corporate form for the 

most part, that the exemption from 

campaign finance laws is by statute, 

and one which Congress could remove 

at any time, threatening freedom of 

the press. If that were to happen and 

the Constitution were to allow restrictions on corporate independent expenditures, the guarantee of freedom of the 

press would be as threatened as freedom of speech. 

Then there is another situation, and 

this deals with the restaurant chain of 

Chick-fil-A. The owner of that chain is 

a Christian who has spoken in favor of 

the value of traditional marriage. The 

chain has not discriminated against 

anyone so far as has been reported. The 

restaurant seeks to expand in Boston 

and Chicago where presumably it 

would create new jobs, and in order to 

get there, it has to meet the permit requirements. However, Mayor Menino of 

Boston wrote a letter to the company 

president. He said that because of the 

owner’s ‘‘prejudice statements,’’ there 

would be no place in Boston for the discrimination the company represented. 

The mayor notified the property owners where the restaurant was to open of 

his views. 

In Chicago, an alderman seeks to 

deny Chick-fil-A from opening in his 

ward for the same reason. It is reported 

that President Obama’s former Chief of 

Staff, now Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, is sympathetic to the alderman’s 

point of view. 

Once again, this is a gross violation 

of first amendment free speech. Government cannot deny a benefit to 

someone because it disagrees with the 

applicant’s views. This is the fundamental principle of our constitutional 

democracy. 

Voicing support for traditional marriage is not discrimination. That 

speech is not hate speech. Even if it 

were, the first amendment protects 

speech that is unpopular with the government. There is no constitutional 

speech code that allows banning a hate 

speech any more than government can 

ban speech in books. 

Finally, the Alvarez decision a few 

weeks ago affects another first amendment issue pending before this body 

right now. In the Alvarez case, the Supreme Court struck down the Stolen 

Valor Act which criminalizes lies concerning winning military medals. It did 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5458 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 26, 2012 

so on free speech grounds. I know many 

of my colleagues desire to pass a new 

law that will accomplish that goal, and 

if that law is constitutional, I will 

probably join them in that effort. 

Two bills on this subject are now 

pending in the Senate. Senator BROWN

of Massachusetts introduced the first 

bill and then Senator WEBB did so after 

the Alvarez decision. There have been 

efforts to pass both bills by voice vote. 

When the Republicans were asked to 

move the Webb bill, we were told that 

all Democrats supported the bill. This 

is a problem. The Webb bill is clearly 

unconstitutional based upon the Alvarez decision. It criminalizes some lies 

about medals that the Supreme Court 

says Congress cannot criminalize. 

For instance, it would prohibit lies in 

campaigns and in employment, even 

when those lies would not produce the 

tangible, material benefit that is necessary to punish them. Yet no Democrat objected to passing the bill without debate. Of course, Republicans 

could not agree to such a request. 

Since he did not have the benefit of 

the Supreme Court decision when Senator BROWN wrote the bill, right now, 

because of the decision, and he didn’t 

know about it, Senator BROWN’s bill is 

also unconstitutional. The difference 

between his bill and Senator WEBB’s 

bill, however, is that Senator BROWN

now has a substitute amendment that 

seems to address the problem in a fully 

constitutional way. But although 

Democrats want to pass without debate 

a clearly unconstitutional bill, somehow they object to a clearly constitutional Brown bill. 

These games should stop. I am sure 

all the Members of this body should be 

willing to support a single constitutional bill that would reenact the prohibition on lying about whether one is 

entitled to certain military medals. 

In short, this country is facing a disturbing increase in government actions 

that violate the freedom of speech. 

That is a vital right of our democracy. 

Anyone can stand up for speech with 

which they agree. The test for government officials and the test for free 

speech is whether they will allow 

speech with which they might disagree. 

They may criticize speech, debate the 

speech, and seek to change minds. But 

shutting people up, denying them benefits, passing bills that would put people 

in jail for exercising free speech 

rights—these are never allowable under 

our Constitution. It is time for elected 

officials to pay greater heed to the 

oath to support the Constitution. 

REPORT BY FORMER FBI DIRECTOR WILLIAM

WEBSTER ON FORT HOOD ATTACK

Recently, former FBI Director William Webster was asked to investigate 

how the FBI performed regarding the 

attack at Fort Hood by MAJ Nidal 

Hasan. 

Major Hasan’s attack killed 12 U.S. 

soldiers, a Defense Department employee, and wounded 42 others. Following the attack, the FBI conducted 

an internal review and determined that 

it had information on Major Hasan 

prior to that attack. As a result, the 

FBI Director asked Judge Webster to 

conduct an independent review and investigation of the FBI’s handling of the 

matter. In short, Judge Webster’s commission found that the FBI made mistakes that resulted from a number of 

problems—some operational, some 

technological. 

Some of these mistakes are extremely concerning given that they are 

basic management failures. For example, the unclassified report states: 

Many agents and most [task force officers] 

did not receive training on [FBI computer 

systems] and other FBI databases until after 

the FBI’s internal investigation of the Fort 

Hood shootings. 

This is clearly unacceptable. 

Other problems highlighted include 

failing to issue Intelligence Information Reports on Major Hasan to the Defense Department; confusion about 

which FBI office was investigating the 

lead; failure to interview Major Hasan; 

along with information technology 

limitations. 

All in all, the Webster report paints a 

disturbing picture of the FBI. It shows 

lack of training, failure to follow leads, 

and continued computer problems. 

These are the types of problems that, 

quite frankly, we thought were corrected following the terrorist attacks 

of 9/11. 

Ultimately, Judge Webster issued 18 

recommendations for the FBI to implement to prevent future problems such 

as these. The FBI agreed with these 

recommendations and has stated they 

will take action to implement those 

recommendations. 

That is good news, of course. The FBI 

must implement these recommendations and do it immediately. However, 

we have a duty to make sure the FBI 

implements these recommendations 

and holds people accountable—in fact, 

hold the FBI accountable—if they 

don’t. The FBI’s failure in this case is 

inexcusable and shakes public confidence in the FBI’s ability to combat 

homegrown terrorism. Basic management problems and investigative failures can’t happen, particularly if national security is at stake. If failures of 

this magnitude occur on high profile 

national security cases, it makes one 

wonder what the FBI is doing on other 

investigations. 

Those responsible for these failures 

should be held accountable. I intend to 

follow up with Director Mueller to determine what action was taken against 

those people who didn’t do the job in 

the right and correct way. 

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR GENERAL

REPORT

One more report that can’t go ignored is a report released this morning 

by the Justice Department Office of Inspector General. This report examined 

improper hiring practices within the 

Justice Department’s Justice Management Division. Shockingly, the inspector general found the Justice Department employees openly and flagrantly 

violated Federal law. 

Let me repeat that these employees 

violated Federal law and the Department of Justice regulations prohibiting 

employment of relatives, granting illegal preferences in employment, conflict of interest, and misuse of position. 

Further, employees who were interviewed by the Office of Inspector General were also found to have made false 

statements to investigators. 

This is an example of the Justice Department run wild. It is troubling to 

me how employees within the Department colluded and schemed to hire one 

another’s relatives in order to avoid 

rules against nepotism. It is inexcusable, and I can assure my colleagues 

that we will be looking into this matter. 

This wasn’t a one-time event, by the 

way. In fact, the Office of Inspector 

General pointed out that similar problems existed in 2008. Despite what the 

Department called ‘‘aggressive action’’ 

to stop this type of behavior back in 

2008, it appears nothing has changed. 

At the very least, the Attorney General needs to hold these employees accountable with more than just disciplinary action. Laws were broken and 

false statements were made. The Department can’t simply sweep this 

under the rug. Employees need to be 

punished because in this town, if heads 

don’t roll, nothing changes. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island 

CLIMATE CHANGE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I 

return to the floor today to give voice 

once again to the issue I feel will most 

significantly define this generation of 

leadership in the United States and 

around the globe. I rise to discuss the 

notable, evident changes taking place 

in our Earth’s climate, the relationship 

between our own activities and the 

change and the rate of change being observed, and our, so far, forsaken responsibility to address climate change 

head on and with purpose. 

Last month, representatives from 

world governments, the private sector, 

NGOs, and other major stakeholders 

gathered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for 

the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Marking the 

20th anniversary of the 1992 Earth 

Summit in Rio, this year’s conference 

was nicknamed ‘‘Rio+20.’’ 

So-called sustainable development 

principles consist of a set of principles 

and strategies that, when acted upon 

by the global community, will balance 

strong economic growth, expansion of 

just civic and government structures, 

and environmental protection. Another 

way to view sustainable development is 

in the balance of the needs of the 

present with those of future generations through the fair use of resources. 

As Secretary of State Hillary 

Rodham Clinton said: 

In the 21st century, the only viable development is sustainable development. The only 

way to deliver lasting progress for everyone 

is by preserving our resources and protecting 

our common environment. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 26, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5459 

One positive aspect of this Rio+20 

conference was discussion of the power 

of economic forces in promoting sustainability. The official Outcome Document adopted by the conference participants entitled ‘‘The Future We 

Want’’ highlights the role of private 

companies, the private sector—and 

their close collaboration with governments—in driving sustainable development. It reads in part: 

We acknowledge that the implementation 

of sustainable development will depend on 

active engagement of both the public and 

private sectors. We recognize that the active 

participation of the private sector can contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including through the important 

tool of public-private partnerships. 

A number of Rio+20’s corporate participants have stepped forward to accept this challenge. Many of those 

global businesses are recognizing that 

greening their operations is not just 

good for the environment, it is good for 

their business as well. 

Dell, for example, has committed to 

reducing its worldwide facilities’ 

greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent by 

2015. Dell is a computer technology corporation based in Texas that ranks 44th 

on the Fortune 500 and employs over 

106,000 people. I doubt they made that 

decision rashly. 

Bank of America, based in Charlotte, 

NC, is number 13 on the 2012 Fortune 

500 list and was the first bank to offer 

coast-to-coast operations in the United 

States. They have committed $50 billion over 10 years to finance Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy and Energy 

Access, and other activities that advance the low-carbon economy. 

Marriott has displayed both internal 

and external efforts by committing to 

build 10 Fairfield by Marriott hotels 

constructed to sustainable building 

standards; as well, pledging $500,000 to 

help preserve 1.4 million acres of 

rainforest in the Juma Reserve in the 

state of Amazonas, Brazil. Marriott 

ranks first on the Fortune 500 list in 

the category of the hotel-casinos-resorts industry. 

Microsoft has committed to going 

completely carbon neutral, and will be 

factoring the costs of carbon output 

into the company’s business operations 

in over 100 countries. 

These companies are just a few examples from the effort that is being undertaken in the private sector to meet 

our responsibilities to address climate 

change. As leaders in government, we 

must recognize that the private sector 

will not, however, be able to halt climate change on its own. But these 

commitments do signify that action on 

climate change does not need to come 

at the expense of economic growth. 

Governments can—and must—provide incentives for sustainable production and consumption. Indeed, the 

Rio+20 Outcome Document goes on to 

say: ‘‘We support national regulatory 

and policy frameworks that enable 

business and industry to advance sustainable development initiatives taking into account the importance of corporate social responsibility.’’ 

As leaders in the public sector, we 

have the capacity to establish those effective incentives that can leverage 

billions in private sector investment 

into sustainable products and services 

that support environmental and social 

improvements. The constructive role 

that government can play is being recognized not just in capitals around the 

world but in boardrooms around the 

world. 

Yet, unfortunately, here in Washington, the special interests that deny 

carbon pollution causes global temperatures to rise, that deny melting 

icecaps destabilize our climate so that, 

for instance, regions face extreme 

drought—as the Senator from Colorado 

discussed earlier—or outsized precipitation events—that we have seen in my 

home State of Rhode Island—those special interests in Washington still have 

a strong hold, and they pretend the 

jury is still out on climate changes 

caused by carbon pollution. This is, to 

be perfectly blunt about it, an outright 

falsehood. 

The fact that carbon dioxide in the 

atmosphere absorbs heat from the Sun 

was discovered at the time of the Civil 

War—1863. Mr. President, 1863 was 

when the Irish scientist John Tyndall 

determined that carbon dioxide and 

also water vapor trapped more heat in 

the atmosphere as their concentrations 

increased. 

The 1955 textbook, ‘‘Our Astonishing 

Atmosphere’’—from the year I was 

born—notes that ‘‘Nearly a century 

ago’’—in 1955—‘‘the scientist John Tyndall suggested that a fall in the atmospheric carbon dioxide could allow the 

earth to cool, whereas a rise in carbon 

dioxide would make it warmer.’’ 

So this is not something new. This is 

not something unusual or extraordinary. This is solidly established 

science. 

In the early 1900s, it became clear 

that changes in the amount of carbon 

dioxide in the atmosphere can account 

for significant increases and decreases 

in the Earth’s annual average temperatures, and that carbon dioxide, released 

primarily by the burning of coal, would 

contribute to these changes. Again, 

this is not new stuff. These are well-established scientific principles. 

Let’s look at the changes we observe 

in our changing planet. Over the last 

800,000 years, until very recently, the 

atmosphere has stayed within a bandwidth of 170 to 300 parts per million of 

carbon dioxide—170 to 300 parts per 

million. That has been the range for 

8,000 centuries. By the way, that is a 

measurement, not a theory. Scientists 

measure historic carbon dioxide concentrations by locating trapped air 

bubbles in the ice of ancient glaciers. 

So we know by measurement over time 

what the range has been of our carbon 

dioxide concentration. 

What else do we know? Well, we 

know since the Industrial Revolution, 

we have burned carbon-rich fuels in 

measurable and ever-increasing 

amounts, and that we are now up to 7 

to 8 gigatons each year going into our 

atmosphere. A gigaton, by the way, is a 

billion—with a ‘‘B’’—metric tons. Releasing all this carbon into the atmosphere has, predictably, increased the 

carbon concentration in our atmosphere. That should not be a difficult 

proposition, that when you are dumping 7 to 8 billion metric tons of carbon 

into the atmosphere every year, it 

raises the concentration of carbon in 

the atmosphere. 

We now measure those carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. We 

measure them climbing. Again, this is 

a measurement, not a theory. The 

present concentration exceeds 390 parts 

per million. Mr. President, 8,000 centuries between 170 to 300 parts per million, and now we are out over that 

range, as far as 390 parts per million. In 

the Arctic, we have actually clipped 

over into 400 parts per million. 

Here is what the Christian Science 

Monitor said about this: 

The Arctic is the leading indicator in global warming, both in carbon dioxide in the air 

and effects, said Pieter Tans, a senior NOAA 

scientist. 

The Arctic is our leading indicator in 

global warming, both in terms of the 

carbon dioxide concentration in the air 

and the effects of that carbon dioxide 

concentration. 

‘‘This is the first time the entire Arctic is 

that high,’’ he said. 

Tans called reaching the 400 number ‘‘depressing,’’ and [his colleague Jim] Butler— 

Who is the global monitoring director at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth System 

Research Lab in Boulder, CO— 

said it was ‘‘a troubling milestone.’’ 

‘‘It’s an important threshold,’’ said Carnegie Institution ecologist Chris Field, a scientist who helps lead the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. ‘‘It is an indication that we’re in a 

different world.’’ 

‘‘It is an indication that we’re in a 

different world.’’ 

In this article, they make the same 

point I made a moment ago. I quote the 

article: 

It’s been at least 800,000 years—probably 

more—since Earth saw carbon dioxide levels 

in the 400s, Butler and other climate scientists said. 

So another thing we do pretty regularly around here in business, in the 

military, in science, is plotting trajectories. It is something that, frankly, 

scientists, businesspeople, and military 

folks do every day. There is nothing 

new here. 

When you plot the trajectory for our 

carbon concentration, the trajectory 

for our carbon pollution predicts 688 

parts per million in the year 2095 and 

1,097 parts per million in the year 2195. 

Mr. President, 688 parts per million in 

the year 2095, when for 8,000 centuries 

it has been between 170 and 300 parts 

per million. So 8,000 centuries at 170 to 

300 parts per million, and by the end of 

this century: 688 parts per million. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5460 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 26, 2012 

To put that 800,000-year figure in perspective, mankind has engaged in agriculture for maybe 10,000 years, maybe a 

little more. Mr. President, 800,000 years 

ago, it is not clear we had yet figured 

out how to make a fire. Millions of 

years ago goes back into geologic time. 

Those carbon concentrations—688 parts 

per million, 1,097 parts per million— 

those are carbon concentrations that 

we have not seen in millions of years 

on the surface of the Earth. And we are 

headed for them in just a century and 

a half—two centuries. 

As Tyndall determined at the time of 

the Civil War, increasing carbon concentrations will absorb more of the 

Sun’s heat and raise global temperatures, and experience around the world 

is proving that is taking place in front 

of our faces in undeniable ways. 

We think often of climate change as 

happening to our atmosphere, and we 

think of its effects on our lands because we are land-based creatures. But 

let me talk for a moment about our 

oceans. 

In April of this year, a group of scientific experts came together to discuss the current state of our oceans. 

Their workshop report stated this: 

Human actions have resulted in warming 

and acidification of the oceans and are now 

causing increased hypoxia. 

Hypoxia is when there is not enough 

oxygen trapped in the ocean to sustain 

life of the creatures that live in the 

ocean. 

Studies of the Earth’s past indicate that 

these are the three symptoms— 

Warming, acidification and increased 

hypoxia— 

associated with each of previous five mass 

extinctions on Earth. 

We experienced two mass ocean 

extinctions 55 million years ago and 251 

million years ago. Last year, a 

paleobiologist at Brown University, 

whose name is Jessica Whiteside, published a study demonstrating that it 

took 8 million years after that earlier 

extinction—the one 251 million years 

ago—it took 8 million years after that 

for plant and animal diversity to return to preextinction levels. So that 

was a pretty heavy-duty wipeout if it 

took 8 millions years to recover. 

Here is the tough part. In the lead-up 

to these past mass ocean extinctions, 

scientists have estimated that the 

Earth was emitting carbon into the atmosphere at a rate of 2.2 gigatons per 

year for the earlier extinction, and 

somewhere between 1 and 2 gigatons 

per year for the second extinction over 

several thousand years. 

Remember how much are we releasing now—7 to 8 gigatons a year. So 2.2 

and somewhere between 1 and 2 were 

the levels that led to those mass 

extinctions in geologic time, and we 

are now at 7 to 8 gigatons a year. 

As the group of Oxford scientists 

noted, both of these estimates, the 

ones for how much was being released 

in those geologic times, are dwarfed in 

comparison to today’s emission. Our 

oceans are indeed changing before our 

very eyes, and anyone who spends time 

on the oceans or who studies the 

oceans knows this. The oceans are rising. The oceans are swept by more violent storms. The oceans are getting 

more acid, affecting already the creatures at the bottom of the food chain, 

upon which ocean life depends. 

It is very hard for a creature to succeed in an environment in which it is 

becoming soluble. That is what is happening as our oceans acidify, and the 

small basic creatures at the very bottom of the food chain that live by making their shells can no longer make 

shells successfully because the water is 

too acidic. 

In the Arctic, we see unprecedented 

icemelt. The caps are shrinking. Every 

day it seems we hear about a new 

record being broken, a new loss of ice 

cover in the Arctic. In the tropics, we 

see coral dying. In some places, 80 percent of the coral is gone. I have been to 

places I can remember live and lively 

coral reefs, and now we go back and the 

coral is still there, but it is dead. It is 

like an abandoned building. Fish can 

swim around in it, but it is not the 

fountain of life that a coral reef is supposed to be. 

There is a garbage gyre in the Pacific 

that is estimated to be larger than the 

size of the State of Texas in which 

enormous amounts of the plastics we 

discard are being swept and floating. 

We have whales that are poisoned to 

the point where if they come ashore in 

Rhode Island on a summer day, if they 

are hurt or get washed ashore because 

they are injured, we often end up with 

whale cadavers in the summers on our 

coast. When that happens, it is reasonably likely that whale is toxic waste; 

that if we towed the body back out to 

the ocean to let it sink and let nature 

take its course, we would be violating 

our clean water laws by disposing of 

toxic waste. If we cranked that whale’s 

body up into the back of a truck and 

took it to the town dump and chucked 

it, we would be violating the hazardous 

waste disposal laws of the State of 

Rhode Island because we have put so 

much poison into the ocean that creatures such as whales that live at the 

top of the food chain have now become 

so infiltrated with these poisons that 

they are now swimming toxic waste. 

Around here we like to think pretty 

highly of ourselves. But the laws of 

physics, the laws of chemistry, the 

laws of science, these are laws of nature. These are laws of God’s Earth. We 

can repeal some laws around here; we 

cannot repeal those. Senators are used 

to our opinions mattering around here. 

These laws are not affected by our 

opinions. For these laws of nature, because we can neither repeal them nor 

influence them, we bear a duty of stewardship, of responsibility to future generations to see and respond to the facts 

that are before our faces and to see and 

respond to those facts according to nature’s laws. 

There is no lobbyist so powerful, 

there is no secret special interest so 

wealthy that it can change the operation of those laws. What they have 

done is to change the operation of our 

laws, inhibited our ability to meet our 

duty to respond to the laws of our Godgiven Earth. We do indeed bear a duty 

to make the right decisions for our 

children and grandchildren and our 

God-given Earth. right now we are failing, shamefully failing, in that duty. 

We are deluded if we think that somehow we will be spared the plain and 

foreseeable consequences of our failure 

to act. Some may hope they will find a 

wizard’s hat and wand with which to 

wish all this away. That is not rational 

thinking. If we have a simple obligation to our children and to future generations, it is to be rational human 

beings and to make rational decisions 

based on the evidence and the laws of 

nature. These laws of nature are 

known. Earth’s message to us is clear. 

Our failure is blameworthy. Its consequences are profound, and the costs 

will be very high. 

I see the distinguished Senator from 

Alaska who actually brought a wonderful scientist from the University of 

Alaska who gave one of the better presentations on ocean acidification that I 

have ever seen as part of our Oceans 

Caucus. 

I yield the floor to Senator MURKOWSKI. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

FRANKEN). The Senator from Alaska. 

EPA

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I 

have had an opportunity to listen to a 

few moments of the comments from my 

colleague from Rhode Island. I clearly 

share his passion and concern for the 

oceans. We have been working together 

as the cochairmen of the Oceans Caucus in the Senate and have had the opportunity to learn from one another on 

both ends of the country about the significant responsibilities we have, also 

the great challenges we have, whether 

it is ocean acidification, whether it is 

the opportunities we have to ensure 

that we are good stewards of our water, 

our land, our air. 

It is a challenge I think we face on a 

daily basis. But I think as we rise to 

meet these challenges, we recognize 

that oftentimes within the laws that 

we have put in place to provide for that 

level of protection, for that level of 

oversight and that stewardship, that 

we may encounter conflict, conflict 

with the obligation we also have to ensure that the people we represent have 

an opportunity for good jobs, for a livelihood in a region they call home, that 

there is a level of balance that we find 

between our obligation to care for the 

land, the air, the water, as well as caring for one another. 

It is in that vein that I would like to 

address my comments this afternoon. I 

would like to speak about certain aspects of what we see within the Environmental Protection Agency and 

speak specifically to an issue that is 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 26, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5461 

unfolding in my State of Alaska. Clearly, the EPA has important responsibilities to set and also enforce environmental standards. I think we would all 

agree with that. In the 40 years since 

EPA was established, our Nation has 

made dramatic progress in restoring 

and preserving our environmental resources. I am grateful. I am proud to 

live in a nation with high environmental standards for the benefit of the 

land and for the people. 

But the process for setting Federal 

environmental standards, I would suggest, is broken. We are seeing things 

present themselves not only in my 

State but around the country. We see 

in Alaska, day in and day out, that 

things are not working perhaps as they 

were designed. So many Alaskans feel 

the EPA does not ‘‘get’’ Alaska. 

But the challenges I think we see up 

North are just examples of many of the 

problems we see repeated all over the 

Nation. I would suggest that what we 

need to see is balance, balance restored 

at the EPA. There has always been a 

recognition that the EPA must go 

about its work in a balanced way. 

Back in 1970, there was a memo 

called the Ash memo, and it listed the 

origin of the EPA. They stated it this 

way: 

Sound environmental administration must 

reconcile divergent interests and serve the 

total public constituency. It must appreciate 

and take fully into account competing social 

and economic claims. 

In recent years, EPA has not adequately, let alone fully, taken into account these so-called competing claims 

such as the genuine welfare of our people and their economic needs. EPA 

says—and I have had many a conversation with Administrator Jackson in 

person and before committee, where 

the statements are made that there is 

a concern about environmental justice 

for communities that are historically 

underrepresented in EPA decisionmaking. The fact is, many of these 

communities are very frequently the 

ones that bear the brunt of regressive 

increases in, for instance in my State, 

energy and in living costs that are 

caused by some of these rules we are 

facing. 

When I go home, when I meet with 

people from around the country, I hear 

more complaints, more concerns expressed about the EPA than any other 

Federal agency, bar none. Again and 

again, I am told the benefits of many of 

the EPA requirements are uncertain at 

best but that the cost of the regulations are very real, and they are detrimental to the human welfare. 

Today, EPA often seems too eager to 

impose requirements that are dubious 

in their health or their environmental 

benefits but whose main effect may be 

to penalize or to perhaps even stop 

commerce or development. So restoring an appropriate equilibrium is vital 

if we want to have a healthy people, if 

we want to have a healthy economy. 

Today, I would like to speak to one 

example from my State. There is as it 

relates to ECA. ECA is a reference to 

the Emissions Control Area. The EPA 

was a major proponent of including the 

ocean off southern and southeastern 

Alaska in an international emissions 

control area. This was an effort to reduce emissions from marine vessels 

through lowering sulfur standards 

within the fuel. 

The purpose of the emissions control 

areas is to require ships—which, to be 

very fair, certainly have significant 

emissions—to do their part to curb pollution. This is absolutely reasonable. 

The problem we are seeing up north is 

that EPA never gathered any air modeling data to support the claim that we 

have a problem from ships that travel 

up to Alaska. There has been no air 

modeling data whatsoever. We have requested. There has been none. Moreover, one of the proposals advanced to 

work with the EPA—and we need to be 

working with our agencies, as we need 

our agencies to be working with us— 

was an offer for an equivalent method 

to comply with the ECA requirements 

in North America. We are the only 

State in the country that is not accessible by road. Folks come and visit us 

by air and they come in by ship in the 

summertime. Tourism is big business 

in Alaska. In Juneau, the ships that 

are tied up at the docks are utilizing 

shoreside services so there are no emissions when they are in the community. 

So one of the proposals that was out 

there—this equivalency method—would 

essentially ask for a tradeoff. If we 

have cruise ships emitting nothing 

when they are in dock or at shore, offset that against those that would be 

emitted from vessels out at sea, essentially an averaging. That was rejected 

by the EPA. 

What has made this particularly disconcerting for many Alaskans is that 

in the EPA’s justification they cite a 

U.S. Forest Service study that purportedly found some evidence that emissions from cruise ships in southeast 

Alaska could impact the lichen in the 

mountains above Juneau. We can see 

the mountains up here in this chart. 

They are pretty high. There is lichen 

up on the top. It is kind of a short, 

mossy, green plant. The report went on 

to worry that if we have impacted lichen growth in Juneau, it could somehow or other harm the caribou. 

Never mind the link that lichen and 

cruise ship emissions may be very tenuous, there is a bigger problem with 

EPA’s reasoning, and anybody from 

Alaska would know the problem, which 

is there are no caribou in Juneau, AK. 

There are no caribou anywhere in 

southeastern Alaska. Everyone has 

seen my pictures before. Alaska is a 

pretty big State. If we are sitting in 

Juneau, AK, the caribou herd this report was apparently concerned about is 

over 1,000 miles away. There are about 

1,000 miles between Juneau and where 

the southern Alaska Peninsula caribou 

herd cited in the EPA study live—1,000 

miles. It would be as if we would make 

the assertion a cruise ship sitting in 

Miami might somehow affect the food 

supply for bears up in the Pocono 

Mountains north of Philadelphia, PA. 

I think we need to look at this and 

recognize we have a pretty flawed 

study to begin with, if the suggestion 

is we need to ensure there are no emissions coming from a cruise ship in Juneau because that is going to impact 

the lichen which will impact the caribou that don’t happen to live anywhere near Juneau—no closer than 

1,000 miles away. So applying these 

new fuel standards to save the lichen in 

Juneau to feed caribou 1,000 miles from 

here will mean vessels plying the 

waters of southeast and south central 

Alaska—whether they are freight vessels that move just about all our goods 

or cruise ships that are the lifeblood of 

our tourist economy—will have to 

meet the requirement they now burn 

low-sulfur diesel at levels suggested 

that are, perhaps, not attainable. 

The question I think is fair to ask is: 

What is the problem with requiring 

these cruise ships and these vessels 

bringing goods north to Alaska to meet 

these standards? What is the problem 

with this requirement? 

The problem is while these ECA requirements may not have a measurable 

positive effect on human health—or 

caribou food, for that matter—they 

will have a material impact on our cost 

of living. Look at the State of Alaska 

and the way we get our materials in, 

the way we get our foodstuffs, our 

hardware, our lumber. It comes to us 

over the water. There is some, yes, 

that comes in by airplane, but guaranteed that is going to cost much more. 

There are some that can come up from 

the lower 48 across through Canada and 

into Alaska that way. But if we want 

to talk about increased emissions, that 

is surely one way to do it, to put it on 

a truck and haul it all the way up here. 

So much of our goods come to the 

State by water. About 85 percent of the 

goods that come to the State of Alaska 

come into the Port of Anchorage, 

which is sitting right there. 

What we see with these ECA regs is 

that ships coming out of a port such as 

Los Angeles or Long Beach—where my 

colleague from California hails from, 

and she is here on the floor now—have 

hundreds of ships coming in and out 

every day, but they are not subject to 

this same emissions control area. They 

only need to burn this expensive lowsulfur fuel for a very short time until 

they are out of the ECA. The problem 

is, when traveling along Alaska’s coast 

to bring those goods up to our State, 

you are in an area where our air is 

pretty clean—our air is very pristine— 

but the entire voyage is within this 

ECA region. It is all within this emissions control area. So throughout that 

entire journey they are required to 

burn the lower sulfur, more expensive 

fuel. 

If this were just going to result in an 

increase in cost to the cruise lines or 

to the freight haulers that come up to 

the State, that might be one thing, but 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5462 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 26, 2012 

I think we recognize the economic reality that every dime that is added to 

the cost of doing business in Alaska is 

ultimately going to be a dime passed 

on and shared by consumers. 

The State of Alaska recently cited an 

estimate that these new requirements 

will increase the shipping costs to the 

State of Alaska by 8 percent. One 

might say: Eight percent, that is not 

that bad. We can live with that. But 

the problem we face is that in 2015, just 

around the corner, we will see an even 

higher standard these vessels will be 

held to. At that point in time, the suggestion is that costs could be increased 

by as much as 25 percent. That may be 

on the high margin, but let’s say somewhere between 8 and 25 percent. Again, 

almost every commodity consumed in 

our State is transported either by ship 

or by ship and plane, with the cost of 

freight adding a significant increase to 

every item out there. 

We are already one of the most expensive places to live in America, and 

rural Alaska is even more expensive. I 

check on a weekly basis to find out 

what Alaskans are paying for their 

fuel, whether it is in the city of Anchorage or up in Fairbanks or out in 

Kwethluk or in the villages. I monitor 

that regularly to see how our villages 

are faring. In Kotzebue, for instance, 

this week they are paying about $7.15 

for a gallon of gas. I asked that we put 

a link on our Web site to get some pricing on what we are seeing in our communities as it relates to foodstuffs, 

things you and I would use in our home 

here. Here is a package most of us recognize. A 10-pound bag of sugar in 

Kwethluk is going for $17.25. There is 

no other store in Kwethluk, other than 

the Native store, so it is not as if they 

can go to the Safeway and comparison 

shop. It is not as if they can get in 

their car and drive to the city or go to 

Costco. It just doesn’t happen. There 

are no roads in and out of Kwethluk. 

You might be able to take an airplane. 

A gallon of whole milk costs $30 in 

Ambler, that is if you can find whole 

milk or any kind of fresh milk. As a 

mom who has boys who go through 

laundry, I am always looking to see 

what people are paying for laundry detergent. In Venetie, a 100-ounce bottle 

of Tide goes for $43.50. I had my interns 

do a little price comparison on Tide. 

Powdered Tide, 56 ounces, in Anchorage we are paying $9.98. That is a little 

higher than here in Washington. Washington is about nine bucks. But in 

Angoon that same box of Tide is $18.33. 

In Barrow it is $22. In McGrath it is $21. 

In Bethel it is $21. 

So when we talk about increasing the 

prices in Alaska by 8 percent, 10 percent, 12 percent, possibly 25 percent 

and you are a mom buying a box of 

Tide and you are already paying $43, 

believe me, 8 percent starts to add up 

real quick. When you are trying to buy 

a bag of sugar so you can make the 

food, put up the jam for the winter, and 

you are paying $17.25 in Kwethluk, I 

think it is fair to say we are paying attention to what happens when there 

are cost increases. 

EPA mandated low-sulfur fuel is estimated to add $100 million in additional 

cost to the summer cruise traffic in 

Alaska. So one might say, if you can 

afford the price of a cruise, that is not 

that big of a deal. You increase the 

price of the ticket and people will live. 

But what happens is that puts Alaska 

at a competitive disadvantage when we 

are talking about where these businesses are going to operate. Fourteen 

percent of all employment in the State 

is directly tied to the tourism industry. So if the cruise lines can’t fully 

pass on these increased costs, what 

they are going to do is move their 

ships. They will take them to other 

parts of the world where air quality 

standards are different, and we will 

have the loss of seasonal visitors. The 

money they bring to southeastern 

Alaska is a huge part of the local economy and also to year-round institutions. In Juneau, our regional hospital 

is actually able to provide for a higher 

standard of care, in part, because of the 

high influx of patients it serves during 

the summertime. 

I would suggest the EPA’s one-sizefits-all approach to environmental regulation doesn’t always work. We can’t 

quite shoehorn that into in all situations, and we need to be aware of that. 

Again, when we talk about the concept 

of environmental justice, we need to 

make sure when regulations and rules 

are imposed, we are not hurting the 

most vulnerable. I would suggest the 

people in Kwethluk, who are looking at 

the impact of these regulations and 

what it is going to mean to them and 

their village, they are asking: How do 

we survive? How do we live? The answer isn’t for them to move to Washington, DC. That is not the answer. We 

need to get back to balance. 

What is happening now is the State 

of Alaska has sued the EPA Administrator in Federal Court to stop the new 

requirements from taking effect. Given 

the immediacy of the threat these requirements pose to my State, I think 

the State’s move to advance the litigation was the right one. But we 

shouldn’t have to sue our own government in order to get balanced regulation. 

Administrator Lisa Jackson has recently acknowledged that applying 

ECA to Alaska has posed a problem. 

She recognized that. Unfortunately, we 

haven’t seen anything more beyond 

those words, and we are still no closer 

to a solution. These new requirements 

are set to take effect next week, the 

initial threshold. I have been raising 

this issue with EPA for several years, 

but again we are still working and we 

have not yet resolved it. I have called 

on the President himself to marshal 

the State Department to see if ECA 

can be amended or some other relief 

can be found to eliminate at least this 

one burden. 

This is something that is touching 

Alaskans in a very immediate and a 

very direct way. Again, we want to ensure our air is clean, that our water is 

clean. We want to be the good 

custodians and stewards of our land, 

and we are. But we need to be able to 

work with our Federal regulators. I 

have asked the Administrator and I 

have asked the President to work with 

us on this. 

TED STEVENS DAY

Mr. President, I know my colleague 

from California is here to speak, but I 

would like the indulgence of the body 

for just 2 more minutes to speak on a 

little bit of a happy occasion. 

TED STEVENS DAY

Mr. President, the day after tomorrow, on Saturday, Alaskans are going 

to be celebrating Ted Stevens Day. As 

I travel around the State, whether I am 

in Fairbanks or down on the Kenai 

River or up in Bethel, down in Ketchikan, everywhere I go, I am reminded 

of my good friend and a friend to so 

many in this body, Senator Ted Stevens. 

It was nearly 2 years ago now that we 

lost Uncle Ted to the tragic plane 

crash in southwest Alaska. But as tragic as that was, I always stop to remember that that tragedy struck while Ted 

was doing what he loved to do most, 

which was enjoying Alaska’s great outdoors and going fishing, just being outdoors. His passion for Alaska’s unique 

wilderness, his love for fishing, and his 

immense affection for the outdoors 

really embodies the spirit we are now 

advancing in Ted Stevens Day, and the 

motto of this day is ‘‘Get Out and 

Play.’’ 

On the fourth Saturday of July, we 

join together to celebrate the life and 

the legacy of a man who was really 

dedicated to public service, whether it 

was his days as a pilot in World War II, 

to the four decades he served with us 

here in the Senate. 

He began working in Alaska long before statehood. When he came here to 

Washington, DC, to represent us in the 

Senate, he began a battle for our State 

that lasted for 40 years. He fought for 

roads, for buildings, and for infrastructure that new, young States need, as 

well as many of the programs that are 

in place today that continue on. He 

worked to transform not only Alaska 

but really the rest of the country as 

well. 

It is somewhat coincidental that this 

Ted Stevens Day coincides with the beginning of the 2012 summer Olympic 

games in London. So as Alaskans get 

together to get out and play this weekend under the midnight sun, there are 

going to be 530 American athletes who 

will begin to embark on a 17-day Olympic journey Senator Stevens helped to 

pioneer. It is because of legislation he 

championed that the Olympic movement in the United States exists as it 

does today. 

Back in 1978, he fought for the passage of the Olympic and Amateur 

Sports Act. This was later renamed the 

‘‘Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur 

Sports Act’’ in his honor and declared 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 26, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5463 

the U.S. Olympic Committee the centralized body of all Olympic activities 

in the country and ultimately led to 

the creation of national governing bodies responsible for the oversight of each 

individual Olympic sport—a structure 

that is still in place now. He really was 

so much an inspiration to the progress 

and to the development of the Olympic 

movement here in the United States. 

Earlier this month, the U.S. Olympic 

Committee honored Senator Stevens as 

a special contributor in the Class of 

2012 U.S. Olympic Hall of Fame. 

We all know Senator Stevens was 

also a huge proponent of title IX. I 

think he would be very proud that for 

the first time in American history, 

Team USA is comprised of more women 

than men. I think that would give him 

a smile. But this feat was made possible by the landmark legislation 

passed 40 years ago that opened gymnasium doors and leveled the playing 

field for women and girls across the 

country. 

In Alaska, we very often say that Ted 

Stevens was larger than life. Today, in 

discussing this and bringing this up, we 

recognize that on Saturday we are 

going to continue a tradition of remembering a man who loved Alaska 

with a passion. As we go out and bike 

and hike and fish, I think many will 

share good memories of an amazing 

Alaskan, an amazing man, and truly an 

amazing American. 

I thank the Presiding Officer for the 

opportunity to speak a few minutes 

about a subject which should, hopefully, bring a smile to many of us. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I 

wish to speak on the Cybersecurity Act 

of 2012. I assume that bill is in order 

and on the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed is pending. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I 

come to the floor as the chairman of 

the Intelligence Committee to, in my 

own way, indicate the seriousness of 

the job we are about to begin. I know 

there is controversy. I know there are 

differences of opinion. But what people 

have to understand is that we have 

breach after breach now, and they have 

become far more numerous, much more 

sophisticated, and much more insidious 

in recent years. 

I want to give a number of examples 

of what is happening out there in the 

real world, and let me begin by going 

back to 2008, when the Pentagon’s classified military computer networks suffered a ‘‘significant compromise.’’ That 

is according to former Deputy Secretary Bill Lynn in 2010. These 

breaches are usually classified at the 

time they happen; therefore, people 

don’t know about them. So all I am 

going to do is run through unclassified 

breaches, and even that is beyond comprehension. Former Secretary Lynn 

also detailed that foreign hackers stole 

24,000 U.S. military files in a single attack on a defense contractor in March 

2011. 

In the 5 months from October 2011 

through February 2012, over 50,000 

cyber attacks were reported on private 

and governmental networks, with 86 of 

those attacks taking place on critical 

infrastructure networks. Now, that is 

according to the bipartisan Policy Center’s Cybersecurity Task Force. Fifty 

thousand incidents were the ones that 

were reported to the Department of 

Homeland Security, so they represent 

only a small fraction of the cyber attacks carried out against the United 

States. 

In December 2011, press reports revealed that the networks of the U.S. 

Chamber of Commerce were completely 

penetrated for more than a year by 

hackers. The hackers apparently had 

access to everything in Chamber computers, including member company 

communications and industry positions 

on U.S. trade policies. 

In March 2011, NASA’s Inspector General reported that cyber attacks successfully compromised NASA computers. In one attack, intruders stole 

150 user credentials that could be used 

to gain unauthorized access to NASA 

systems. 

Another attack at the Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory that involved China-based 

Internet Protocol addresses let the intruders gain full access to key JPL systems and sensitive user accounts. 

Forty-eight companies in the chemical, defense, and other industries were 

penetrated during 2011 for at least 6 

months by a hacker looking for intellectual property. The cybersecurity 

company Symantec attributes some of 

these attacks to computers in Hebei, 

China. 

It became worldwide news when 

Google alleged in April of 2011 that 

China had compromised hundreds of 

Gmail passwords for e-mail accounts of 

prominent people, including senior U.S. 

officials. 

On March 17, 2011, RSA publicly disclosed that it had detected a very sophisticated cyber attack on its systems 

in an attempt to obtain data that 

would compromise RSA’s authenticated log-in technology. The data acquired was then used in an attempt to 

penetrate Lockheed Martin’s networks. 

Between March 2010 and April 2011, 

the FBI identified 20 incidents in which 

the online banking credentials of small 

to medium-sized U.S. businesses were 

compromised and used to initiate wire 

transfers to Chinese economic and 

trade companies. As of April 2011, the 

total attempted fraud amounts to approximately $20 million, and the actual 

victim losses are $11 million. 

In October 2010, hackers penetrated 

the systems of NASDAQ, which 

sparked concerns about the severity of 

the cyber threat facing the financial 

industry. 

In January 2011, a hacker extracted 

$6.7 million from South Africa’s 

Postbank over the New Year’s holiday. 

In January 2011, hackers penetrated 

the European Union’s carbon trading 

market, which allows organizations to 

buy and sell their carbon emissions 

quotas, and stole more than $7 million 

in credits, forcing the market to shut 

down temporarily. 

An international computer-crime 

ring, broken up in October 2010, siphoned about $70 million in a hacking 

operation targeting bank accounts of 

small businesses, municipalities, and 

churches, according to the FBI. 

In November 2008, hackers breached 

networks at Royal Bank of Scotland’s 

WorldPay, allowing them to clone 100 

ATM cards and withdraw over $9 million from machines in 49 cities. 

In December 2008, retail giant TJX 

was hacked. The one hacker captured 

and convicted, named Maksym 

Yastremskiy, is said to have made $11 

million from the hack. 

In August 2008, computer networks in 

Georgia were hacked by unknown foreign intruders, most likely at the behest of the Russian Government because they were coordinated with Russian military actions against Georgia. 

In May 2007, Estonian Government 

networks were harassed by a denial-ofservice attack by unknown foreign intruders, most likely again at the behest of the Russian Government because they were part of the worst dispute between the two countries since 

the collapse of the Soviet Union. 

So, as you can see from some of the 

examples above, for years now, the 

United States and other countries have 

been at the receiving end of multiple, 

concerted efforts by nation-states and 

non-state actors to hack into our networks. These bad actors are infiltrating our communications, accessing 

our secrets, and sapping our economic 

health by stealing intellectual property. They may also be building a capability, if necessary in the future, to 

wage cyber war. We may not even 

know until the attack has been 

launched. 

These attacks are sophisticated, and 

involve hacking techniques that we unfortunately now see quite often. Cyber 

attacks can come in the form of viruses 

and worms, malicious backdoors, logic 

bombs, and denial-of-service attacks, 

just to name a few. 

A groundbreaking unclassified report 

from November of last year published 

by the Intelligence Community said 

cyber intrusions against U.S. companies cost billions of dollars annually. 

The report named China and Russia as 

aggressive cyber thieves. 

On China, the report said: ‘‘Chinese 

actors are the world’s most active and 

persistent perpetrators of economic espionage.’’ We know that sophisticated 

attacks from China against financial 

and technology companies, such as 

Google, resulted in property theft on a 

massive scale. Billions of dollars of 

trade secrets, technology, and intellectual property are being siphoned each 

year from the United States to benefit 

the economies of China and other countries. 

On Russia, the report said: ‘‘Russia’s 

intelligence services are conducting a 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5464 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 26, 2012 

range of activities to collect economic 

information and technology from U.S. 

targets.’’ I can assure everyone that 

the classified assessments are far more 

descriptive and far more devastating. 

The examples above are bad enough, 

but cyber threats are evolving, and I 

am very concerned that the next wave 

will come in the form of crippling intrusions against the computers that 

control powerplants, dams, transportation hubs, and financial networks in 

these United States. 

We have already seen the use of cyber 

attacks in warfare, when hackers inside Russia reportedly took down the 

command and control systems in Estonia in 2007. That was 5 years ago, 

roughly a lifetime in the realm of 

cyber attack capability. 

Senior national security experts from 

across the political spectrum have 

sounded the alarm about this threat. 

For Example, Leon Panetta, at his confirmation hearing to be Secretary of 

Defense, said: 

The next Pearl Harbor we confront could 

very well be a cyber attack that cripples our 

power system, our grid, our security systems, our financial systems, our governmental systems. 

Bob Mueller, Director of the FBI, testified before the Senate Intelligence 

Committee that ‘‘the cyber threat, 

which cuts across all programs, will be 

the number one threat to our country.’’ 

We are dealing with the No. 1 threat to 

the country. 

I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 

with Senators LIEBERMAN, COLLINS, 

ROCKEFELLER, and CARPER. I wish to 

thank them for their tireless work on 

this legislation over the past several 

years. 

This act has seven titles. Each of 

them addresses a key gap in our Nation’s cyber laws. I wish to take a moment to describe the critical infrastructure provisions in Title I, but I 

wish to focus most of my remarks on 

the information-sharing part of the 

bill, which makes up Title VII. 

Title I covers Critical Infrastructure 

Protection, which means protecting 

the public and private infrastructure 

that underpin our economy and our 

way of life—a big deal. A cyber attack 

against these networks could open a 

dam, crash our financial system, or disable the electric grid. It could stop all 

planes and interrupt the FAA—on and 

on and on. 

Although some critical infrastructure companies have taken action to 

protect their networks, too many of 

them have not. It appears that market 

forces are insufficient for many critical 

infrastructure companies to adopt adequate cybersecurity practices. Thus, 

Title I of this bill would create strong 

incentives for companies to work with 

the Federal Government to establish 

standards for critical infrastructure 

protection. 

Let me be candid. Even though the 

bill makes cybersecurity standards voluntary, I know many Senators still resist this idea. I do not. I would have 

preferred that this bill include its 

original critical infrastructure provisions, which would have mandated 

baseline standards for cybersecurity. 

But I recognize we have to compromise. I recognize this legislation is 

a necessary first step to provide some 

security, and that compromise to the 

voluntary measures in this bill was 

necessary. So we have done it. I hope if 

and when we see a major cyber attack 

against the power grid, or Wall Street, 

or a major dam, we won’t see this compromise as a mistake. 

Other Senators have spoken at 

length about critical infrastructure 

and other parts of the bill, so let me 

move to Title VII, regarding information sharing. This is the part the Intelligence Committee has had something 

to do with. This title—at least 40 pages 

of the bill—covers authorities and protections for sharing information about 

threats to cybersecurity. The information-sharing title addresses one of the 

main problems I heard from both the 

private sector and the government 

about existing laws and business practices when it comes to cyber: that private sector companies and the government know a lot about the cyber attacks against their networks, but this 

information is so stovepiped that no 

one is as well protected as they could 

be if the information were shared. 

That, I believe, is fact. 

As the Bipartisan Policy Center’s 

Cyber Security Task Force recently 

found: 

Despite general agreement that we need to 

do it, cyber information sharing is not meeting our needs today. 

Title VII addresses this problem. It 

reduces the legal barriers that hamper 

a private entity’s ability to work with 

others and the Federal Government to 

share cybersecurity threat information. 

How do we do this? What does that 

title do specifically? First, it explicitly 

authorizes companies to monitor and 

defend their own networks. 

Many companies monitor and defend 

their own networks today in order to 

protect themselves and their customers. But we have heard from numerous companies that the law in this 

area is unclear, and that sometimes it 

is less risky, from a liability perspective, for them to allow attacks to happen than to take additional steps to defend themselves. Can you imagine 

that? So we make the law clear by giving companies explicit authority to 

monitor and defend their own networks. 

Secondly, the bill authorizes the 

sharing of cyber threat information 

among private companies. There have 

been concerns that anti-trust laws prevent companies from cooperating on 

cyber defense. This bill, in section 702, 

clearly says: 

Notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, any private entity may disclose lawfully 

obtained cybersecurity threat indicators to 

any other private entity in accordance with 

this section. 

Third, the bill authorizes the government, which will largely mean (in practice) the Intelligence Community—I 

hope the DNI—to share classified information about cyber threats with appropriately cleared organizations outside 

of the government. 

Traditionally, only government employees and contractors have been eligible to receive security clearances, 

and therefore to gain access to national secrets. To put it another way, 

those with a valid ‘‘need to know’’ 

most security secrets are within the 

government. 

That isn’t true, though, for cybersecurity. In this case, we cannot restrict 

classified information tightly within 

government—the companies that underpin our Nation’s economy and way 

of life have a ‘‘need to know’’ about the 

nature of cyber attacks so they can 

better secure their systems. 

It is not sufficient for the government to be able to defend itself against 

an attack. It is also necessary for companies such as Google, or an institution such as NASDAQ, to be able to 

protect themselves and to use all possible defenses that we can help provide 

to them. 

Under this bill, companies are able to 

qualify to receive classified information. They will be certified and then 

able to obtain classified information 

about what cyber threats to look out 

for. 

Fourth, the bill establishes a system 

through which any private sector entity—whether a power utility, a defense 

contractor, a telecom company, or others—can share cyber threat information with the government. 

When it comes to cyber, information 

sharing must be a two-way street. Oftentimes, the private sector has important information about cyber intrusions that the government doesn’t possess. After all, the private sector is the 

one on the frontlines of incoming cyber 

assault, so companies are often best 

able to understand the attack. 

The private sector should be able to 

share that information with the government so that the government can 

protect itself and fulfill its responsibility to warn others about the threat. 

So let me describe how this bill allows 

for and encourages that information 

sharing, and most importantly, let me 

describe the liability protections that 

companies receive for doing so. 

The Secretary of Homeland Security, 

in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, and the 

Director of National Intelligence, 

would designate one or more Federal 

cybersecurity exchanges. We envision 

that these exchanges would be an existing entity, such as one of the existing 

Federal cybersecurity centers. 

Private companies would share cyber 

threat information with these exchanges directly. These exchanges 

must be civilian entities, which is important to a number of Senators. They 

will have procedures in place to share 

that information as quickly as possible 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 26, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5465 

with other parts of the government. 

The information is protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. It cannot be used in a regulatory enforcement action. 

This exchange would serve as a focal 

point for information sharing with the 

government. Having a single focal 

point would establish a single point of 

contact for the private sector. Otherwise we would have chaos. Some people 

want multiple points. It is difficult to 

do and still maintain the security that 

is necessary. 

We think this approach solves the 

problem. Having a single focal point is 

also more efficient for the government. 

It would help eliminate stovepipes, because right now there are dozens of different parts of the government receiving information from the private sector 

about cyber threats they are encountering. It is all over the map. It would 

also make privacy and civil liberties 

oversight easier, which I know interests you, Mr. President. I will describe 

that in a moment. 

Finally, it should save taxpayers 

money, because it is more efficient to 

manage—and that has to be a concern—and oversee the operation of one 

entity versus many entities. 

Let me now describe the all-important liability protections that are such 

a critical part of this. 

Section 706 of the bill provides liability protection for the voluntary sharing of cyber threat information with 

the Federal exchange. 

The bill reads: 

No civil or criminal cause of action shall 

lie or be maintained in any Federal or State 

court against any entity [that means a company] acting as authorized by this title, and 

any such action shall be dismissed promptly 

for . . . the voluntary disclosure of a lawfully obtained cybersecurity threat indicator 

to a cybersecurity exchange. 

That is section 706(a). It is clear as a 

bell. In other words, a company is immune from lawsuit over sharing cyber 

threat information with a Federal exchange. The same immunity applies to 

the following: companies that monitor 

their own networks; cybersecurity 

companies that share threat information with their customers; companies 

that share information with a critical 

infrastructure owner or operator; and 

companies that share threat information with other companies, as long as 

they also share that information with 

the Federal exchange within a reasonable time. This ‘‘reasonable, good 

faith’’ defense is also available for the 

use of defensive countermeasures. 

If a company shared information in a 

way other than the five ways I have 

just mentioned, it still receives a legal 

defense under this bill from suit if the 

company can make a reasonable, goodfaith showing that the informationsharing provisions permitted that sharing. 

Further, no civil or criminal cause of 

action can be brought against a company, an officer, an employee, or an 

agency of a company for the reasonable 

failure to act on information received 

through information-sharing mechanisms set up by this bill. 

Basically—and this is important; 

please listen—the only way anyone 

participating in the information-sharing system can be held liable is if they 

were found to have knowingly violated 

a provision of the bill or acted in gross 

negligence. 

So there are very strong liability 

protections for anyone who shares information about cyber threats—which 

is completely voluntary—under this 

bill. 

Now, what information will be shared 

with the exchange? Information that 

should be shared includes—but is not 

limited to—malware threat signatures, 

known malicious Internet Protocol, or 

IP, addresses, and immediate cyber attack incident details. 

The exchanges would be able to share 

this information in as close to real 

time as possible over networks. That is 

the only way for the private sector and 

the government to stay a step ahead of 

our cyber adversaries. 

What kind of information can they 

share? We define this information in 

our bill as ‘‘cybersecurity threat indicators.’’ We define this term to include 

only information that is ‘‘reasonably 

necessary’’ to describe the technical 

attributes of cyber attacks. This is not 

a license for the government to take in 

and distribute private citizens’ information. Rather, it is narrowly tailored 

to cover information that relates specifically to a cyber attack. 

In addition to narrowly defining 

what information can be shared with 

an exchange, our bill also requires the 

Federal Government to adopt a very 

robust privacy and civil liberties oversight regime for information shared 

under this title. There are multiple 

layers of oversight from different parts 

of the Executive Branch, including the 

Department of Justice, the independent Privacy and Civil Liberties 

Oversight Board, as well as the Congress. I wish to direct Members to the 

privacy and civil liberties protections 

on pages 185 through 192 of this bill for 

the litany of procedures, reviews, and 

reports that are required. 

We have worked closely with several 

Senators, including the Presiding Officer, Senator FRANKEN, and Senators 

DURBIN, COONS, AKAKA, BLUMENTHAL, 

and SANDERS on these protections, and 

I really thank them all for their efforts 

in that regard. I think my colleagues 

have really helped the bill become a 

better bill. 

I would also be remiss if I didn’t show 

my great appreciation of the work and 

leadership of the majority leader for 

his unrelenting focus on getting this 

bill to the floor and making time to 

have this debate. It is infinitely better 

having this debate now rather than 

after a major cyber attack. My greatest worry is that we wouldn’t pass 

something. 

The perfect cannot be the enemy of 

the good. This legislation is unprecedented. It will take some steps. We will 

find other steps we will need to take. 

We will need to come back to it and 

come back to it because technology is 

moving so quickly. 

I think this is as important a bill as 

I have seen in my 20 years in the Senate. I know what is out there. I know 

what some other countries are doing. I 

know what some bad actors are doing. 

The time has come to protect ourselves 

and take some action. 

I hope we will have the support, and 

I urge my colleagues to vote for this 

bill. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor and I 

note the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 

roll. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut. 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask unanimous 

consent that the order for the quorum 

call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

HONORING AMBASSADORS TO PAKISTAN AND

AFGHANISTAN

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I 

am here today to express my sincere 

appreciation and thanks and admiration to a number of our distinguished 

Foreign Service officers who were similarly lauded by Senator MCCAIN earlier 

today. I heard his remarks, and I wish 

to be associated with them. 

I wish to express my thanks to three 

very brave and able men who have 

served this country under the most demanding and difficult conditions, requiring huge personal courage as well 

as insight and strong action. They are 

Ryan Crocker, who has served as Ambassador to Afghanistan; his deputy 

who will replace him shortly, James 

Cunningham; and our Ambassador to 

Pakistan, Cameron Munter. What they 

share and what they have given us in 

these two critical posts is the best of 

our Nation’s public service and foreign 

service. 

I had occasion to meet both Ambassador Crocker and Ambassador 

Cunningham on a number of visits to 

Afghanistan and to be briefed by both 

of them, so I know personally how extraordinarily honest and forthright 

they are in the insight and intelligence 

they give to congressional visitors. 

And many of us have been among those 

visitors and many of us have met with 

them, so I know others have had that 

experience as well. I know them both 

to be extremely capable and intelligent, thoughtful, and insightful. They 

understand the complexities of this region, and they have succeeded in maintaining strong relationships with our 

partners in Afghanistan and Pakistan 

to the extent they were able to do so 

amid the most complex and challenging circumstances. 

Somehow, in between all of the challenges they faced on the ground day to 

day, they also welcomed congressional 

visitors with extraordinary grace and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5466 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 26, 2012 

graciousness and generosity. I was 

proud to be one of them in visiting 

both Pakistan and Afghanistan. 

I wish to recognize particularly the 

efforts of Ambassador Munter in addressing the supply chain of IED—improvised explosive device—ingredients, 

the fertilizer and other chemicals that 

compose the roadside bombs that have 

literally caused more than half of our 

Nation’s casualties in Afghanistan. 

Those ingredients are smuggled, sometimes in broad daylight, across the border from Pakistan. He has worked hard 

and made a valuable contribution in 

challenging the Government of Pakistan to do better, and to confront the 

threat and to ensure interagency coordination between the Department of 

State and the Department of Defense 

in confronting and attacking the IED 

network. He has written to me personally, and I thank him for his commitment to a cause that others have also 

made a priority, including Dr. Ashton 

Carter, presently Deputy Secretary of 

Defense. Together, we worked on this 

issue and made progress, but so much 

more must be done to stop the flow of 

IED bomb-making material across the 

border which does such horrific, destructive damage to our troops. One 

need only visit the Bethesda Naval 

Center to see it firsthand. Our hearts 

go out to the young men—principally 

men—and women and their families 

who are victims of these bombs. Thank 

you to Ambassador Munter for making 

it a priority. 

I thank Ambassador Crocker likewise 

for working on this problem as he led 

the Embassy in Kabul through profoundly and deeply challenging times. 

When we here in Washington revise our 

policy toward Afghanistan and as we 

go through those revisions now, he has 

adopted and he has carried out policies, 

and he has served well our national interests, even in the midst of change 

and challenge. 

I welcome Deputy Ambassador 

Cunningham to his new post. I have 

worked and been briefed by him. I, in 

fact, stayed with him in the Embassy. 

I have seen his keen insight, his quiet, 

understated manner, and his strength 

and will. 

Indeed, all of these men are men of 

intellect, but they are also men of action, committed to delivering results 

to the Nation. They are men of loyalty 

and courage. 

I will just finish on this note. Nobody 

should underestimate the courage that 

is required to serve in these positions. 

Anyone who has visited these countries 

knows the threat of physical danger is 

ever-present not only to the brave men 

and women who serve in uniform in our 

Armed Forces but to our diplomats 

who every day put their lives on the 

line to serve us. So I thank not only 

them but the thousands of men and 

women who have served with them in 

Afghanistan, in Pakistan, and in other 

countries, at postings in places whose 

names most Americans can barely pronounce. They have demonstrated the 

kind of bravery that Ambassadors 

Crocker, Munter, and Cunningham 

have every day. They deserve our 

thanks and our good wishes as they 

leave their present posts—as Ambassador Crocker retires—and our good 

wishes for continued success for the 

sake of their lives and for the sake of 

our Nation. 

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 

roll. 

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

GUNS IN AMERICA

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I, like 

everyone else in America, have followed the terrible tragedy in Aurora, 

CO. Just awful. I was particularly 

moved when I read in one of our local 

papers the bios of the 12 who had died. 

So many of them were young, in the 

prime of life, in their late teens and 

early twenties. So many of them were 

brave, protecting others—a child, a 

girlfriend, a friend. I was so upset on 

reading this, seeing these people’s lives 

snuffed out, just as they had great futures ahead of them—for nothing. 

It was the same kind of feeling I had 

after the World Trade Center—of 

course, magnified by much more because so many more people died, and I 

actually knew some of the people who 

died. But the same senseless killing of 

innocent people occurred. 

Of course, in the days after the tragedy, and as the dust settled—it will 

never settle for the families whom my 

heart goes out to—we began our usual 

discussion about guns in America, and 

there were many voices on all different 

sides. 

As somebody who has been very involved in these issues, I gave it some 

thought and wanted to share with my 

colleagues and with my constituents 

and my country some thoughts about 

this. 

The question that comes up is: Can 

we do anything about guns in society? 

Of course, many would ask: Should we 

do anything about guns in society? 

Even the very thoughtful and erudite 

member of my own party, the Governor 

of Colorado, said a ban on weapons 

would not have stopped this tragedy 

from occurring, in all likelihood. 

So I wish to share some of my 

thoughts briefly. 

The bottom line is, maybe we can 

come together once and for all on the 

issue of guns if each side gave some. I 

have thought about this for a while. 

As you know, Mr. President, I was 

the House author—the leader, of 

course, was my colleague from California—of the assault weapons ban. I 

am even prouder of the Brady law, 

where I was probably the leader, and 

that has saved so many lives. 

So the question is: When we were 

able to pass those kinds of 

groundbreaking laws, why are we so 

paralyzed now? 

Part of the reason—and this has not 

been mentioned—is that crime has actually decreased dramatically in America for a whole lot of reasons. I probably do not share the views of some of 

my colleagues on this side of the aisle 

as to why it happened. I am a prettytough-on-crime guy. But when crime 

went down, the broad middle that 

wanted to do whatever it took to stop 

crime—I remember how it ravaged my 

city—stopped caring as much because 

they were safer. That is logical. So 

they sort of exited the field. Law enforcement, which had been some of our 

best allies in supporting the assault 

weapons ban and the Brady law, sort of 

left the debate. The debate was simply 

left to those who cared the most, a 

very small number on the side of more 

active laws against gun control and a 

much larger number on the side of 

those who were opposed. 

I know you read in the newspapers: 

the power of money and the NRA. I 

have to say this, as somebody who has 

opposed the NRA and has been written 

up regularly in their magazines in not 

the most flattering way, the NRA’s 

main strength is because they have 2, 

3, 4 million people who care passionately about this issue, who may not 

care about other issues, and who are 

mobilized at the drop of a hat. So when 

there is a bill on the floor of the Senate 

which a majority of Americans may 

support—a majority of Americans support the ban on assault weapons—even 

people in my State like New York hear 

much more from the people who are opposed to the assault weapons ban than 

the people who are for it. Now, 20 years 

ago, that would not have happened, 

again, because I think, more than any 

other reason, crime was so ravaging 

our communities that average folks 

would call and complain and worry 

about too many guns in society, which 

I think there still are now. 

In any case, given that situation, 

which exists, that the activists, the 

people who care about this issue the 

most—not the majority of people—are 

on the side of no limitations or few 

limitations on guns, how can we address that balance? 

I think there can be a balance. Those 

on my side who believe strongly in 

some controls on guns have to acknowledge that there is a right to bear 

arms. It perplexed many in the pro-gun 

movement how liberals would read the 

first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth amendments as broadly as possible, but when 

it came to the second amendment, they 

saw it through a pinhole—it only related to militias, which, frankly, is a 

narrow, narrow, narrow reading of the 

second amendment. 

There were many back then in the 

1980s and 1990s in the pro-gun control 

movement who basically felt there was 

no right to bear arms. I think in part, 

because of that, those on the other side 

of the issue became kind of extreme 

themselves. Their worry was that the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 26, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5467 

real goal of the left was not simply to 

have rational, if you will, laws that 

might limit the use of guns—what guns 

could be had, how many clips, who 

could have them; criminals, the mentally infirm—but, rather, that was just 

a smokescreen to get rid of guns. And 

there was enough evidence back in the 

1980s and 1990s that people actually 

wanted to do that. 

So if you look at the ads from the 

NRA and the groups even farther over, 

the gun owners of America, their basic 

complaint is that the CHUCK SCHUMERs 

of the world want to take away your 

gun, even if it is the hunting rifle your 

Uncle Willie gave you when you were 

14. 

I think it would be very important 

for those of us who are for gun control—some rational laws on guns—to 

make it clear once and for all that is 

not our goal, to make it clear that the 

belief is that the second amendment 

does matter, that there is a right to 

bear arms, just like there is a right to 

free speech and others, and if you are 

an average, normal American citizen, 

you have the right to bear arms. 

I think if the people who are pro-gun 

and from the more rural areas, and different than Brooklyn, the city I am 

from, were convinced that there was a 

broad consensus even in the pro-gun 

control movement that there was a 

right to bear arms, they might get off 

their haunches a little bit. I think that 

is important for this part of the compromise. So the Heller decision, which 

basically said that—and now is the law 

of the land, but was not until a few 

years ago—should not be something 

that is opposed by those who are for rational laws on guns. 

I saw that even the Brady organization, that I have worked very closely 

with—Jim and Sarah Brady helped us 

pass the assault weapons ban and the 

Brady law; I have worked with them 

closely and have known them for decades—but even the Brady organization, 

which in the past had not had that position, is now beginning to embrace it. 

I think that is for the good, and I think 

people should know that. 

Once we establish that it is in the 

Constitution, it is part of the American 

way of life—even though some do not 

like that—but once we establish that 

basic paradigm: that no one wants to 

abolish guns for everybody or only 

allow a limited few to have them under 

the most limited circumstances—this 

is on a national level—then maybe we 

can begin the other side of the dialog. 

The other side of the dialog is, once 

you know no one is going to take away 

your gun, if you are not a felon—your 

shotgun that you like to go hunting 

with or a sidearm if you are a store 

owner in a crime-ridden area—we can 

then say to those on the other side: OK. 

We understand that it is unfair to read 

the second amendment so narrowly and 

read all the other amendments so 

broadly, and you have seen us as doing 

that. But, in response, we would say, 

and I would say, that no amendment is 

absolute, and whether it is in reaction 

to what happened in the 1980s and the 

1990s or because of fanaticism, or for 

maybe fundraising reasons, it seems 

that too many on the pro-gun side believe the second amendment is as absolute, or more absolute, than all the 

other amendments. They are taking 

the converse position to what I mentioned before—the left seeing the second amendment as minuscule, but the 

right seeing the second amendment as 

broader than every other amendment. 

Certainly, the right believes in 

antipornography laws. That is a limitation on the first amendment. Certainly, most people in America believe 

what—I think it was Oliver Wendell 

Holmes or Louis D. Brandeis who said: 

You cannot falsely scream ‘‘fire’’ in a 

crowded theater. That, too, was a limitation on the first amendment. 

Every amendment is a balancing 

test. That is what the Constitution has 

said. 

No amendment is absolute or our society would be tied in a complete knot. 

And so we say to our colleagues, this is 

not a partisan issue completely. There 

are some Republicans who are for gun 

control and some Democrats who oppose it completely. It seems to be more 

of a regional issue than almost an ideological issue. But we would say to our 

colleagues from the pro-gun side of 

things, look, there is a right to bear 

arms. We are not trying to take guns 

away from people we do not have any 

reason to take them away from. But 

you have to then admit that you cannot be so rigid, so doctrinaire that 

there should be no limitation on the 

second amendment. 

The Brady law is a reasonable limitation on the second amendment, saying 

that felons or the mentally infirm or 

spousal abusers should not have a gun. 

The Heller decision acknowledged that 

those kinds of reasonable limitations 

did not violate the second amendment, 

just as the Court has recognized they 

are limitations that do not violate the 

first amendment, all because it is a 

balancing test. 

So I would argue—and we can all find 

the balance in different ways—not only 

is the Brady law a reasonable limitation on the second amendment, it is 

not interfering with the average person’s right to bear arms, but neither 

are the assault weapons. I know there 

was an argument between my colleague 

from California, with whom I agree, 

and my colleague from Wisconsin, with 

whom I do not agree: An AR–15 is used 

for hunting. But I have heard people 

say you should be able to buy a bazooka or a tank. My view is, the assault weapons ban that was passed, 

which was a rather modest bill, was 

less important in saving lives than the 

Brady law by many degrees. But I 

would argue it is a reasonable thing to 

do. A limitation that says you should 

not be able buy a magazine that holds 

1,000 rounds, that is a reasonable thing 

to do. Rules that say we should be able 

to trace where a gun originated so we 

can find those who are violating some 

of these limitations such as the Brady 

law—gun shops that do not check your 

background even though they are required to by law—is a reasonable thing 

to do. Again, we can debate where to 

draw the line of reasonableness. 

But we might, might, might—and I 

do not want to be too optimistic here, 

having years and years of having gone 

through this—but we might be able to 

come to an agreement in the middle 

where we say, yes, there is a right to 

bear arms, and, yes, there can be reasonable limitations on the second 

amendment just as there can be on others. 

That is the place I suggest we try to 

go. Maybe, maybe, we can break 

through the hard ideological lines that 

have been drawn on this issue. Maybe, 

maybe, maybe we can tell those who 

are at the extremes on the far right 

and the far left that we disagree with 

you. And maybe, maybe, maybe we 

could pass some laws that might, 

might, might stop some of the unnecessary tragedies that have occurred, or, 

at the very least, when you have someone who is mentally infirm, such as the 

shooter in Aurora, limit the damage 

they are able to do. Maybe. 

But I would suggest the place to start 

here is for us to admit there is a right 

to bear arms, admit the Heller decision 

has a place in the Constitution, just 

like decisions that supported the other 

amendments, and at the same time say 

that does not mean that right is absolute. That is just a suggestion. I have 

been thinking about this since I read 

those horrible articles about those 

young men and women being killed. I 

would welcome comments, particularly 

from my colleagues on the other side of 

this issue, whether they be Democrat 

or Republican, on those thoughts. 

Just as we have fought over and over 

and over again on so many issues, and 

we have gotten into our corners—there 

may be none that we have gotten into 

our corners on more than on gun control. Maybe it is time, as on those 

other issues, to come out of the corners 

and try, people of good will, who will 

disagree and come from different parts 

of the country with different needs, 

maybe there is a way we can come together and try and try to break 

through the logjam and make the 

country a better place. 

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 

roll. 

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

MORNING BUSINESS 

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent the Senate proceed 

to a period of morning business, with 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE